Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On 15 March 2010 09:13, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: 2010/3/12 Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: On 12 March 2010 15:07, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote: Currently listed for Plone 4.x are things like: ... - Well formed, valid XHTML (as a foundation for easier theming via xdv) That's really good to hear. Though I think semantic HTML or sensible ids/classes to identify elements in pages is what I had in mind with this point. Well besides the valid XHTML which is a requirement for Chameleon as well. It's also likely that we'll transition to using HTML5 (the XHTML-compatible phrasing, ie. HTML5, but close your tags), and Deco as a layout engine will be much happier if we do a revamp of the existing HTML structure. It's quite messy in parts from the 8+ years in production, and while it has held up well, it's time to adjust to how the web has evolved since then, especially with focus on our upcoming theming capabilities. We will almost certainly have to use an obsolete permitted doctype string to get lxml / libxml2 to output xhtml correctly. This means the intersection of the lists in http://svn.gnome.org/svn/libxml2/trunk/xmlsave.c and http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#obsolete-permitted-doctype-string - xhtml 1.0 strict. Laurence ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On 3/16/10 12:34 , Laurence Rowe wrote: On 15 March 2010 09:13, Alexander Limil...@plone.org wrote: 2010/3/12 Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Laurence Rowel...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: On 12 March 2010 15:07, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote: Currently listed for Plone 4.x are things like: ... - Well formed, valid XHTML (as a foundation for easier theming via xdv) That's really good to hear. Though I think semantic HTML or sensible ids/classes to identify elements in pages is what I had in mind with this point. Well besides the valid XHTML which is a requirement for Chameleon as well. It's also likely that we'll transition to using HTML5 (the XHTML-compatible phrasing, ie. HTML5, but close your tags), and Deco as a layout engine will be much happier if we do a revamp of the existing HTML structure. It's quite messy in parts from the 8+ years in production, and while it has held up well, it's time to adjust to how the web has evolved since then, especially with focus on our upcoming theming capabilities. We will almost certainly have to use an obsolete permitted doctype string to get lxml / libxml2 to output xhtml correctly. This means the intersection of the lists in http://svn.gnome.org/svn/libxml2/trunk/xmlsave.c and http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#obsolete-permitted-doctype-string - xhtml 1.0 strict. I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. We'll discuss the pros/cons of switching once we get a full PLIP for this in time for Plone 5 in a year or so from now. From what I can tell today, we'll still need to support IE 7+ at that point, which puts clear limits on what we can do. I can see us using a lot of the new input elements which degrade nicely in older browsers for example. But switching the doctype won't be anything our default theme can do. Everyone is free to build a new theme himself experimenting with HTML5, but I don't see that as part of the core. Our default will have to be conservative, aiming for maximum compatibility. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-shiv/ for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-shiv/ for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On 3/16/10 18:40 , Alexander Limi wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net mailto:wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Some very basic things I've run into: some browsers can't style the legend tag, some browsers can't style input (esp. file) elements, some browsers drop the value of button elements, some browsers do weird things if you offset the body (to the point where jQuery no longer even tries to support that). Given that today you can use div elements with classes to get the same results as HTML5 would give I don't see any point in trying to hasten a change to HTML5. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
What does transitional doctype have to do with geolocation? (and XHTML STRICT is a problem, since it implies serving with XML MIME type, which IE doesn't handle, so that's unlikely to happen) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Veda Williams v...@groundwire.org wrote: This brings up the question of when we're moving away from Transitional DOCTYPE. Do we have a sense of when this will happen? I'm particularly keen on knowing, as it opens up the door for us in terms of geolocation in the next year or so. Thanks, - Veda On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Limi wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netwrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-shiv/ for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team -- *Veda Williams* Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x23 v...@groundwire.org [image: Groundwire]http://groundwire.org?utm_source=Groundwire.org-emailutm_medium=Emailutm_campaign=email-signature;utm_content=Logo -- ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! Read all about our new namehttp://groundwire.org/about/our-new-name?utm_source=Groundwire.org-emailutm_medium=Emailutm_content=Read%2Ball%20about%20our%20new%20nameutm_campaign=email-signature . -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
By my reading of the html 5 draft, it would seem conformant with the (html5) spec to serve a document with a text/html Content-Type but an XHTML Strict doctype. On 16 March 2010 20:14, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: What does transitional doctype have to do with geolocation? (and XHTML STRICT is a problem, since it implies serving with XML MIME type, which IE doesn't handle, so that's unlikely to happen) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Veda Williams v...@groundwire.org wrote: This brings up the question of when we're moving away from Transitional DOCTYPE. Do we have a sense of when this will happen? I'm particularly keen on knowing, as it opens up the door for us in terms of geolocation in the next year or so. Thanks, - Veda On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Limi wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team Veda Williams Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x23 v...@groundwire.org ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! Read all about our new name. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
The way it works is that you can use the XHTML spelling (ie. closing your tags), but you serve it up as normal HTML. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_elements_with_.2F.3E_or_.3E.3F There's no Strict or similar thing in HTML5, AFAIK. (There is also something informally referred to as XHTML5 which is serving it as XML, which isn't what we want to do) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: By my reading of the html 5 draft, it would seem conformant with the (html5) spec to serve a document with a text/html Content-Type but an XHTML Strict doctype. On 16 March 2010 20:14, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: What does transitional doctype have to do with geolocation? (and XHTML STRICT is a problem, since it implies serving with XML MIME type, which IE doesn't handle, so that's unlikely to happen) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Veda Williams v...@groundwire.org wrote: This brings up the question of when we're moving away from Transitional DOCTYPE. Do we have a sense of when this will happen? I'm particularly keen on knowing, as it opens up the door for us in terms of geolocation in the next year or so. Thanks, - Veda On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Limi wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team Veda Williams Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x23 v...@groundwire.org ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! Read all about our new name. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
It is listed as an obsolete permitted doctype string http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#obsolete-permitted-doctype-string - i.e. we can lie about the doctype. I'm not sure why xhtml 1.0 transitional is not allowed. Laurence On 16 March 2010 22:18, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: The way it works is that you can use the XHTML spelling (ie. closing your tags), but you serve it up as normal HTML. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_elements_with_.2F.3E_or_.3E.3F There's no Strict or similar thing in HTML5, AFAIK. (There is also something informally referred to as XHTML5 which is serving it as XML, which isn't what we want to do) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: By my reading of the html 5 draft, it would seem conformant with the (html5) spec to serve a document with a text/html Content-Type but an XHTML Strict doctype. On 16 March 2010 20:14, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: What does transitional doctype have to do with geolocation? (and XHTML STRICT is a problem, since it implies serving with XML MIME type, which IE doesn't handle, so that's unlikely to happen) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Veda Williams v...@groundwire.org wrote: This brings up the question of when we're moving away from Transitional DOCTYPE. Do we have a sense of when this will happen? I'm particularly keen on knowing, as it opens up the door for us in terms of geolocation in the next year or so. Thanks, - Veda On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Limi wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team Veda Williams Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x23 v...@groundwire.org ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! Read all about our new name. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
Right, I don't see a reason to do that, though — it doesn't buy us anything. The reason the HTML5 doctype is simply: !DOCTYPE html …is that it's the shortest possible string that will trigger strict/standards parsing (ie. not quirks mode) in all browsers, including IE6. On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: It is listed as an obsolete permitted doctype string http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#obsolete-permitted-doctype-string - i.e. we can lie about the doctype. I'm not sure why xhtml 1.0 transitional is not allowed. Laurence On 16 March 2010 22:18, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: The way it works is that you can use the XHTML spelling (ie. closing your tags), but you serve it up as normal HTML. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_elements_with_.2F.3E_or_.3E.3F There's no Strict or similar thing in HTML5, AFAIK. (There is also something informally referred to as XHTML5 which is serving it as XML, which isn't what we want to do) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: By my reading of the html 5 draft, it would seem conformant with the (html5) spec to serve a document with a text/html Content-Type but an XHTML Strict doctype. On 16 March 2010 20:14, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: What does transitional doctype have to do with geolocation? (and XHTML STRICT is a problem, since it implies serving with XML MIME type, which IE doesn't handle, so that's unlikely to happen) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Veda Williams v...@groundwire.org wrote: This brings up the question of when we're moving away from Transitional DOCTYPE. Do we have a sense of when this will happen? I'm particularly keen on knowing, as it opens up the door for us in terms of geolocation in the next year or so. Thanks, - Veda On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Limi wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team Veda Williams Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x23 v...@groundwire.org ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! Read all about our new name. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
Unfortunately it's not possible to generate that from an xslt processor / libxml2 / lxml, and in order to trigger the xhtml output mode (so you get br / with the space) you need to specify an xhtml 1.0 doctype to be output. It seems quite likely with deco / blocks / xdv that we will have an lxml based output chain, so we will be restricted in what's possible. This has been brought up previously on the libxml2 list, though without resolution (I can't find the reference to that right now). We might want to start campaigning now for !DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM about:legacy-compat (and indeed -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN) to be added to the doctypes that trigger xhtml compatible output in libxml2's xmlsave.c Also here http://www.w3.org/2008/08/cleantheweb/libxml and here http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_MIME_type_does_HTML5_use.3F it states the Content-Type should be application/xhtml+xml for the xml serialization, so I guess absolute conformity may be impossible, though self-closing tags seem to be allowed for the html serialization too so maybe we're ok there. Laurence On 16 March 2010 22:50, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: Right, I don't see a reason to do that, though — it doesn't buy us anything. The reason the HTML5 doctype is simply: !DOCTYPE html …is that it's the shortest possible string that will trigger strict/standards parsing (ie. not quirks mode) in all browsers, including IE6. On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: It is listed as an obsolete permitted doctype string http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#obsolete-permitted-doctype-string - i.e. we can lie about the doctype. I'm not sure why xhtml 1.0 transitional is not allowed. Laurence On 16 March 2010 22:18, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: The way it works is that you can use the XHTML spelling (ie. closing your tags), but you serve it up as normal HTML. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_close_empty_elements_with_.2F.3E_or_.3E.3F There's no Strict or similar thing in HTML5, AFAIK. (There is also something informally referred to as XHTML5 which is serving it as XML, which isn't what we want to do) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: By my reading of the html 5 draft, it would seem conformant with the (html5) spec to serve a document with a text/html Content-Type but an XHTML Strict doctype. On 16 March 2010 20:14, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: What does transitional doctype have to do with geolocation? (and XHTML STRICT is a problem, since it implies serving with XML MIME type, which IE doesn't handle, so that's unlikely to happen) On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Veda Williams v...@groundwire.org wrote: This brings up the question of when we're moving away from Transitional DOCTYPE. Do we have a sense of when this will happen? I'm particularly keen on knowing, as it opens up the door for us in terms of geolocation in the next year or so. Thanks, - Veda On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Limi wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: I'ld like to see a list of pros and cons of using HTML 5 as well. I am quite worried by the lack of proper support in existing browsers. None of them implement any of the existing HTML standards properly, and I fear that switching to the still unfinished HTML5 would be a several steps too far at this point in time. What parts in particular do you find are not working? Browsers that don't have dedicated support for HTML5 will just treat those tags similar to div elements (given an HTML5 shiv for styling to apply in IE), and most of the new form-related enhancements are additive in nature. In general, HTML5 renders even on IE6, there isn't much magic here (but of course it doesn't get any of the advantages either). HTML5 is mostly about standardizing edge case behaviors and adding new abilities that will gracefully degrade in older browsers — and then a few new tags like video/audio (that are also relatively easy to make degrade) and structural elements like article/footer, etc. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team Veda Williams Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x23 v...@groundwire.org ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! Read all about our new name. -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On 16 March 2010 23:37, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: Unfortunately it's not possible to generate that from an xslt processor / libxml2 / lxml, and in order to trigger the xhtml output mode (so you get br / with the space) you need to specify an xhtml 1.0 doctype to be output. It seems quite likely with deco / blocks / xdv that we will have an lxml based output chain, so we will be restricted in what's possible. This has been brought up previously on the libxml2 list, though without resolution (I can't find the reference to that right now). I'm thinking it will be easier to get libxml2/lxml to add this than to change the HTML5 spec. I don't think we'll persuade libxml2 to implement it the !DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM about:legacy-compat as xhtml output until the standard is finalised, it's already been changed from !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC XSLT-compat in the last few months. More on this here. http://www.contentwithstyle.co.uk/content/xslt-and-html-5-problems Also here http://www.w3.org/2008/08/cleantheweb/libxml and here http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_MIME_type_does_HTML5_use.3F it states the Content-Type should be application/xhtml+xml for the xml serialization, so I guess absolute conformity may be impossible, though self-closing tags seem to be allowed for the html serialization too so maybe we're ok there. Yes, that's what I meant. HTML serialization, but self-closing tags. This is the polyglot / overlap language from http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML Laurence ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
