- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:04:53 -0600
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > > 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. > For some. For others, it's a solution waiting to be discovered, when painted into a corner by decisions outside the developer's control. Which they won't discover, if nobody tells them it's a legitimate part of the architecture. > > 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. > Not publishing could lead developers to major code redesign, when all they really need to fix is output markup. It would be nice for the developer who points this out, to have a normative reference as backup for confirming orthodoxy. -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 06:05:08 UTC