- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:41:31 +0200
- 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 hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 13:41:59 UTC