[Zope3-dev] Re: XML header and TAL interpretor

[Julien Anguenot]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Tonico Strasser wrote:
> 
>>Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
>>
>>
>>>Tonico Strasser wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tonico Strasser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not so sure that this is such a good thing. ZPT seems to enforce
>>>>>>>*guidelines* that not everyone might want to follow (e.g. if I
>>>>>>>want to
>>>>>>>output my XHTML as c14n or something similar). For me, ZPT's HTML
>>>>>>>mode
>>>>>>>just does too many things, most of which won't hurt to be the
>>>>>>>template
>>>>>>>author's responsibility. I definitely consider <br/> vs. <br />
>>>>>>>one of
>>>>>>>them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have different use cases, obviously. For me, HTML mode is a good
>>>>>>thing including <br/> to <br /> conversion. (I don't like to write <br
>>>>>>/> all the time, all our web pages are served as text/html for
>>>>>>non-XHTML
>>>>>>browsers like MSIE, and we follow the compatibility guidelines from
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>XHTML standard).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's good and I agree that there should be tools that aid you in
>>>>>making your HTML work better with the guidelines. But if that means
>>>>>introducing weird obstacles for ZPT authors, I don't think these tools
>>>>>should be part of the ZPT renderer. If you don't want to write <br />
>>>>>all the time, use a "guideline compliance maker" tool (maybe xmllint
>>>>>will do) and feed your template to it... Templating XML is part of
>>>>>ZPT's
>>>>>job; I question if it should do much more at this point.
>>>>
>>>>But that's why ZTPs have HTML mode, no?
>>>
>>>Yes. But rather than helping us, those features are more and more in our
>>>way. And with XML and HTML modes being incompatible, I rather opt for
>>>XML mode and sacrifice a small convenience that I could even bring back
>>>by using additional tools.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I agree that it should be possible to trigger XML mode without the
>>>>>>prolog for use cases like yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That won't help because HTML mode macros and XML mode macros aren't
>>>>>compatible. I really would like to see XML be the default, including
>>>>>Zope 3's skin macros.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, would also like to see this.
>>>
>>>Ah, good. It wasn't at all clear that you actually supported the
>>>proposal :).
>>
>>Yes, if it's still possible to trigger HTML mode. But what about
>>backwards compatibility if we make XML the default mode?
> 
> 
> Well, the namespace stuff would probably account for a major breakage.
> Thus, over the span of two Zope releases, XML mode could be forgiveful
> when people forget to register namespace declarations. Of course, it
> would render deprecation warnings.
> 
> I can't imagine a smooth transition for the other "features" of HTML
> mode because they are like on/off switches. Either you convert <br/> to
> <br /> or you don't. Same with <script ...></script> vs. <script ... />
> and the other things.
> 
> I think it's time to sketch out a proposal :).

+1 Do you want to write it ?

	J.

- --
Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France)
CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org
Zope3 / ECM   : http://www.z3lab.org
mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDFxUnGhoG8MxZ/pIRAvEMAJ0XxFB4peOaIgPyLtdDXIy+j85X0wCcDs4S
z76EIi9Zd8UU8SbqVUaQZtw=
=qWcz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----