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"?>
>>>>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/>,
- 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