[Zope] The new DTML syntax

[Paul Everitt]

Alexander wrote:
> natural languages, "dtml-if" isn't a word; it's two words; we 
> learn, by
> convention, to split such hyphenated constructs into separate 
> words. Our
> mind works best with individual words. Why go against the grain and
> teach the brain a new thing?

Unfortunately you're going against the grain of HTML on this one.  From
the W3C statement on XHTML, which is the declared future for HTML:

"""
There are two major reasons for content developers to adopt XHTML:

First, XHTML is designed to be extensible. This extensibility relies
upon the XML requirement that documents be well-formed. Under SGML, the
addition of a new group of elements would mean alteration of the entire
DTD. In an XML-based DTD, all that is required is that the new set of
elements be internally consistent and well-formed to be added to an
existing DTD. The greatly eases the development and integration of new
collections of elements.
"""

Thus, polluting the HTML namespace with custom DTML tags is against the
grain.  The prepended "dtml-" imitates the XHTML mechanism of specifying
namespaces.

Please feel free to explain to the W3C that their concept of
modularization goes against the way the brain works, and that one big
global namespace is the right thing to do.

> Afaik, there's no technical reason to prefer the "dtml-" prefix to
> something like "z-" or "dt". Is "dtml-in" somehow more unique in the
> world of markup languages than "dtin"? In the future when we're using
> XML namespaces, will we be writing "dtml:dtml-in"?

Nope.  This syntax is supposed to be HTML-oriented version without the
strictness of an XML syntax.  Using a colon would have implied rigor
that wasn't required.

> I'm not surprised that DC dominates the negatively-charged end of the

Please explain the "not surprised".  Do you feel in some way that we've
followed a pattern of being closed-minded?

Do others in the community feel that we've been stifling input?

> discussion, but this is supposed to be an open-source development
> project, so I suggest a good, clean discussion on the topic and then a
> vote.

I agree, we should _continue_ the good, clean discussion that has been
going on since the topic first came up weeks ago.

As for a vote, we'll certainly accept the results of any such vote as
input into our decision-making process, just as Guido accepts multiple
inputs for Python changes before he makes the final decision.  Thus, I
welcome your suggestion for gauging sentiment in the community.

In summary, you've brought up a number of interesting and valid points,
as have many others in this thread on both sides of the argument.  Sound
judgement is the art of sorting through both the reasoned as well as the
confrontational arguments and making the best decision.

--Paul

Paul Everitt       Digital Creations
paul@digicool.com  540.371.6909
-----------------------------------------
The Open Source Zope application server
http://www.zope.org/