- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:57:33 +0100
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On 13/03/2013 00:29 , Alex Russell wrote: > * */Nobody knows how popular it is./* The lack of signage, coupled > with default in-browser parsing as HTML means that few on any side > of the debate understand to what extent producers are creating this > sort of content. It's difficult to draw any conclusions about > importance based on a lack of information either way as a result. Just FYI, I ran a quick and dirty XML parse on the Paciello dataset (a few thousand home pages taken from the top most visited sites — this is therefore very heavily skewed towards the actively and professionally maintained Web, but often useful nevertheless). The proportion of polyglot documents was 569/8881 (non-polyglot: 8311/8881), or roughly 6.4% vs 93.6%. > As a result of all of the above, having (I hope) fairly weighed the > arguments, I would like to recommend that we find a way to extricate > ourself from the request. It doesn't matter to the future of Polyglot, > and it does not, in my view, serve the TAG to be in the middle of this. > Polyglot can have whatever future it will in the W3C without our group > involvement. +1 Just because the polyglot discussion awakens some of the old XML/HTML politics doesn't mean it's architectural. At any rate there certainly are more pressing topics for the TAG to apply its energies to. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:57:44 UTC