Huh, I didn't know that. In that case, I'm more amenable to adding an :html option to Haml. I'm still worried that Haml won't produce properly-styled HTML output, which people will want us to add, which will also end up adding more complexity.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately, those aren't the only differences. There are various > > sorts of annoying differences. In particular, as I understand it, HTML > > tags aren't regular - various tags have different rules for whether a > > closing tag is required, etc. HTML in general is a lot less regular than > > XML/XHTML in terms of what's valid and what's good style. Even if we > > could list all of the differences, I don't want to add that much > > special-case logic to Haml. > > > Nathan, > > If you take an XHTML document, remove slashes from self-closing tags and > change the DOCTYPE, you get valid HTML 4.01 regardless of which elements > were used throughout the document. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
