On Mar 13, 2013 3:57 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org> wrote: > > 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%. Are they all served as text/html? Also, do you have any interest in cron-ing this? The trend data seems invaluable to the discussion. >> 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 14:21:25 UTC