W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Why polyglot is needed

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:41:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAucrt0vM-HwVz1xrJKwZG5f78kTY=b2V0RWBXhpRHcjx=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Ex hypothesi both those options are foreclosed.  You may think that
>  a) I shouldn't want to work in XML

I don't. I think you need to use a text/html serializer at the end of
your workflow. As far as publishing goes, the text/html serializer
doesn't need to be polyglot. (As seen from your example, a
text/html-unaware XML serializer won't do.)

If you want to re-ingest into your workflow as XML the same bytes that
you are forced to publish as HTML, then you have a polyglot use case,
but stipulating that they have to be the same bytes is a self-imposed
constraint. I'm not even opposing to you self-imposing such a
contraint on yourself if you write your own tooling for satisfying the
constraint. I'm against presenting the case as something that should
have general (as opposed to special-case) utility and tool support,
which is what publication by the W3C would look like.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 13:41:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:54 UTC