10895 2010-09-30 19:48:51 +0000 Use markup compatible with both HTML/XML syntax in examples 2011-01-05 18:33:13 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WONTFIX TrackerIssue P2 normal --- 1 peter.winnberg ian hsivonen ian julian.reschke me mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rubys public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 40281 0 peter.winnberg 2010-09-30 19:48:51 +0000 When possible, try to use markup that is compatible with both the HTML *and* XML syntax in the examples (i.e., follow Polyglot Markup guide, http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/). 40390 1 hsivonen 2010-10-01 07:29:21 +0000 I think this should be WONTFIXed. The polyglot syntax has very limited actual utility. Using it examples would suggest to authors who read the spec (and who might then lecture to other authors at conferences) that the polyglot syntax is a "best practice" since it's always used in examples. This could lead to authors to expend useless effort in order to use the polyglot syntax when there's no benefit. 40937 2 ian 2010-10-11 21:46:58 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: see comment 1. There's nothing wrong with just using text/html syntax (in text/html documents) or just using XML syntax (in XML documents); there's almost never a need to try to write in the very limited subset that is both, and especially no reason to encourage it. 43187 3 peter.winnberg 2010-12-08 08:00:18 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are > satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If > you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please > reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML > Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest > title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue > yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html > > Status: Rejected > Change Description: no spec change > Rationale: see comment 1. There's nothing wrong with just using text/html > syntax (in text/html documents) or just using XML syntax (in XML documents); > there's almost never a need to try to write in the very limited subset that is > both, and especially no reason to encourage it. The HTML5 specification has both a HTML and a XML syntax. It makes no sense to have examples of just one of them when they many of them easily could be changed to be compatible with both. This does not mean that authors cannot use markup that isn’t compatible with both. There is of course another solution to this and that is to move the examples to separate document(s) that has examples of both. But that would be a lot more work. 43826 4 rubys 2011-01-05 18:33:13 +0000 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/149