Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

> serve Django Admin as 'text/html', and let other apps choose for themselves. Yes, DEFAULT_CONTENT_TYPE is deprecated, so the admin (soon) should always return text/html, and other apps can choose for themselves. (see ticket #23908 ) I think django

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 3:41 AM, Nils Fredrik Gjerull wrote: > > I am talking about being able to serve pages as application/xhtml+xml, > this is defined by browser support as is the SGML version of HTML5. I > hardly think XML version of HML5 is more ill-defined than the SGML > version. I am not

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

Den 17. aug. 2018 12:07, skrev James Bennett: > > XHTML5 itself is neither well-specified nor robust; the new elements > of HTML5 are more or less dumped by fiat into the old 1999/XHTML > namespace, but who's to say parsers will actually be aware of that? > Especially validating parsers? Can you

Re: Discussion: ModelForms not allowing unbounded RangeField values

Hey James, Thanks for your follow-up here. I think for me the thing that's compelling is the flow you describe in comment 12 : * A user renders an unbound model form, where all model fields have defaults. * The form is pre-filled with

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Nils Fredrik Gjerull wrote: > I still would like a technical answer to why not support both standards? > And again XHTML5 is HTML5 with valid XML syntax. So valid XHTML5 is > valid HTML5, so there is no problem for a framework to provide HTML5 it > should just be

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

Den 17. aug. 2018 11:01, skrev Curtis Maloney: > One of the more significant differences between the advent of XHTML > and now, is that HTML5 introduced standard rules for how to deal with > "invalid" markup, meaning its handling in browsers became consistent. > > XHTML was a great move to allow a

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

On 08/17/2018 06:50 PM, Nils Fredrik Gjerull wrote: think, however, that it is more clear if we give it a value. By the way, the syntax is not new it is the old syntax from HTML4. I have spent quite some time cleaning up ill-formed HTML4. One of the more significant differences between the

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

Den 17. aug. 2018 10:04, skrev Carlton Gibson: > Only half-joking, the diff here makes me want to weep. For me, 150 > files and 1803 line changes is just too much to  > enforce something that is of minority appeal. The changes are simple. Use '/>' at end of self-closing tags and give all

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

Hi Nils. > ... and an issue (#29681), which was prematurely closed as wontfix. As per the when you already re-opened #29038 on this issue, there now needs to be a consensus here before we can (or will) consider a new ticket for this. That's not "premature" — it's just how the project

Re: HTML5 and XHTML5 documents

Den 13. aug. 2018 14:52, skrev Tim Graham: > Another discussion about HTML vs XHTML > is https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/EdwwxxqcKVU/discussion. > > I think if you want to use XHTML, Django should make is possible, but > as it seems the majority of projects use HTML5, I would