Julien Anguenot wrote:
>>>>If you change the doctype declaration with the xml header and add the
>>>>xmlns declaration for tal, metal and i18n then everything's fine after.
>>>>See for instance the navigation macros :
>>>>If you change the header like this then it can be succesfully included :
>>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>>><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
>>>>     xmlns:tal="http://xml.zope.org/namespaces/tal";
>>>>     xmlns:metal="http://xml.zope.org/namespaces/metal";
>>>>     xmlns:i18n="http://xml.zope.org/namespaces/i18n";
>>>>     i18n:domain="zope">
>>>>What kind of issue could we have changing the headers like this on all
>>>>the standard macros since it's xhtml already ?
>>>I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Because once Zope3's macros are XML
>>>mode, all other templates using those macros need to be XML mode. That,
>>>in turn, means that all templates need to carry the <?xml ...?>
>>>processing instruction because that's the only way XML mode is currently
>>>triggered. Since that processing instruction is optional (as opposed to
>>>namespace declarations which are mandatory), I wouldn't want to force it
>>>on template authors.
> I'm ok if we could have the default processing mode to XML on PT.
> Could someone explain me why two different processing modes exist ?

HTML4 mode exists because

- it lets you write <br>, <input>, <hr> etc. instead of <br/>, <input/>,
<hr/> etc.

- it keeps <script src="foo.js"></script> and doesn't mangle it into
<script src="foo.js" /> which seems to confuse IE (Paul just told me).
However, there's a simple workaround for XML mode: introduce whitespace
in between opening and closing tag (e.g. a blank space).

- it enforces some HTML document type (as mentioned before); no idea why
it does that

- ... some of the authors and/or current maintainers such as Fred might
now more and probably even more important points.

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to