On 9/11/07, DHH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd agree if the only thing Rails outputted was XML. Anyway, if > > that's the case shouldn't the default content-type be a proper XML > > content type such as application/xhtml+xml? > > It perhaps should be, if it wasn't because browser bugs caused a world > of hurt around that.
Although XHTML tends to be the knee-jerk doctype, the fact that it can't be sent correctly is a concern for many developers who care about standards. HTML is no less a standard than XHTML, and HTML 4 is equivalent of XHTML 1, so no features are missing. True XHTML is a little more consistent to parse, but HTML is important enough that there are plenty of tools that respect its empty elements. > Want me to close it then? > > I'd be happy to entertain more debate if anyone else have an opinion > on it, but I'm -1 for now. > I don't see any reason that Rails should be limited to XHTML output. Aside from the slightly pedantic content-type reasoning, HTML 4 is still a viable standard and XHTML is not guaranteed to be the future in any way (see HTML 5). I know we don't like extraneous config options here, but I think this is a pretty important one to some people. I guess a plugin would be okay, but this seems to be more of a core type of option--what flavor of HTML to emit. I haven't looked at the patch, but I'm +1 on the concept if the implementation looks okay. -- Gabe da Silveira http://darwinweb.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
