- 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
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.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 01:19:04 UTC