

Re: Why polyglot is needed

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 02:18:13 +0100
To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wt70knbay3oazb@chaals.local>
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:59:59 +0100, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:

> "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, 2013-03-19 16:44 -0700:
>> A better example fo rHenry might be the following anchor tag:
>> <a href=/>Root</a>
> What exactly is better about that example? It seems contrived to me.

Which I think is the crux of Mike's objection, and one that seems  
well-founded. Solving problems that someone *can* create because they are  
clever enough to find a bug isn't a very useful activity.

On the other hand, I still believe a polyglot document is useful. I've  
explained that it is useful for companies and organisations where english  
isn't a language routinely used by the people who have to do the relevant  
work, and where there are XML toolchains in use.

I don't think this is an architectural issue and I don't think the TAG  
should be spending their time on it. It's a deployent issue, that falls in  
the scope of the HTML WG. If W3C doesn't provide the answers for people  
who have these questions, I am sure we can get them from W3Schools, or  
 from someone who writes or translates such content in our language. But I  
understand that for some reason or other many people don't think that is  
aan ideal solution.



Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 01:19:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 March 2013 01:19:04 GMT