Re: Polyglot markup and authors

Jirka Kosek, Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:16:32 +0100:
> On 31.1.2013 0:41, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
>> So where is the danger? Where is the possible mistake?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but from all your past messages related to
> polyglot I got impression that you want promote polyglot as the best
> seralization option for writing out web content.

I can't credibly deny that. #JustAdmit

> But why web authors should be encouraged to use cripple subset of
> XHTML/XML or cripple subset of HTML (which is what polyglot is)

Because the XHTML5+HTML5 subset coincide with many best practices:

 * use UTF-8
 * don't use JavaScript’s document.write (doesn't work in
   XML and is the worst programming language idea ever, according
   to Douglas Crockford - start reading http://www.ADsafe.org.

 * forget about valid documents, concentrate on well-formed.
 * use no-quirks mode
 * try to not rely on self closing of elements.

Feel free to explain, but I thus don't see that polyglot markup is 
handicapped (which is what "crippled" means). 

> instead of using simple plain HTML

Does "simple plain HTML" imply skipping the DOCTYPE? 
http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fxmlguru.cz%2F

Or is that just your XML based tool who can't make sense of the HTML5 
doctype?

> which is best for ~95% content.

Here you seem to mistake "best" with "enough".

> And yes in
> some very specific cases it's better to use XHTML or polyglot. But these
> few percents doesn't justify burden of limiting general syntax to just
> common intersection of XML and HTML.

Polyglot Markup defines a subset that works in those cases too  - 
that's it purpose.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 17:01:54 UTC