- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:55:13 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, 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>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > > 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. > > That is true, but the existence of a Polyglot spec wouldn't have > changed the design of Atom. There was a big group of people who > simply did not want to be bothered with generating well-formed XHTML, > thus Atom had to support that mode as well. > And yet, it wouldn't hurt the Atom spec if the XHTML serialization part referenced Polyglot. Sometimes it's desirable that there be seamless transition within a toolchain between XHTML and HTML. I forget the particulars, but I worked on a project which used Xforms to manipulate HTML inside of Atom. The user-agent could only handle escaped HTML, while the server toolchain was processing XHTML. Working out what amounts to PG on my own based on Appendix C, was a pain. I doubt I'm the only developer who's been there, done that; probably why I'm emphatic on PG even if I haven't been expressing myself well of late. -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 04:55:29 UTC