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

Re: Atom vs Polyglot

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:38:25 -0400
Message-ID: <514B1B61.7020502@arcanedomain.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "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 3/21/2013 9:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote:
>  > You could imagine, for example, the ATOM folks considering a formal
>  > reference to polyglot had a polyglot spec been available at the time.
>  > ...
> Actually, I don't see how this would have helped and what problem it would
> have solved (and yes, I've been involved in Atom).

There's every chance I'm mistaken in this, in which case I apologize. My 
recollection of ATOM is that it is an RSS-like format that is required to 
be well formed XML. If that recollection is wrong, then my comment makes no 

My understanding is that it's often useful to include in ATOM feeds 
fragments of HTML "snipped" from the blogs, etc. that are being summarized. 
My assumption was that there might be a need for the blogs themselves to be 
served text/html, but for the snippets in ATOM to be, essentially, XHTML 
fragments. One way (not the only way) to achieve this would be to restrict 
at least the "snippable" parts of the blog to polyglot.

In general, I think polyglot is potentially useful when content or 
fragments that are usually served as text/html need to be included in XHTML 
or other XML documents.

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 14:39:02 UTC

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