First, more options means more you have to document and more a novice has to learn.
Second, by presenting an extra configuration option, you discourage people from enhancing that feature, because now they're pressured to write two versions. Third, by giving users the option of creating html4 documents, you are lending validity to the idea that html4 is fine. I believe few people share that feeling. -1 On Sep 11, 9:31 pm, "Gabe da Silveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/11/07, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As it stands this patch makes literally *no* difference to users of a > > > rails site, and could be trivially overwritten by a plugin for the > > developers who worry about such things. Does it really need to be > > another option added to the framework? > > I really respect the opinionated nature of Rails and reluctance to add > options willy-nilly. However markup output is an extremely fundamental > aspect of any web framework. For those using XHTML it may seem like an > esoteric feature, but that is just a snapshot in time. I'll go back to my > original point which is that XHTML is not guaranteed to be the future of > HTML. XHTML 1.1 is seeing very slow implementation, and XHTML 2.0 is widely > derided as being too complicated. Meanwhile work continues on HTML 5. > > I don't think it's wise to put all Rails' eggs in the XHTML basket when the > alternative is just a simple and unobtrusive configuration option. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
