Tonico Strasser wrote: > Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb: > >> I'm not so sure that this is such a good thing. ZPT seems to enforce >> *guidelines* that not everyone might want to follow (e.g. if I want to >> output my XHTML as c14n or something similar). For me, ZPT's HTML mode >> just does too many things, most of which won't hurt to be the template >> author's responsibility. I definitely consider <br/> vs. <br /> one of >> them. > > You have different use cases, obviously. For me, HTML mode is a good > thing including <br/> to <br /> conversion. (I don't like to write <br > /> all the time, all our web pages are served as text/html for non-XHTML > browsers like MSIE, and we follow the compatibility guidelines from the > XHTML standard).
That's good and I agree that there should be tools that aid you in making your HTML work better with the guidelines. But if that means introducing weird obstacles for ZPT authors, I don't think these tools should be part of the ZPT renderer. If you don't want to write <br /> all the time, use a "guideline compliance maker" tool (maybe xmllint will do) and feed your template to it... Templating XML is part of ZPT's job; I question if it should do much more at this point. > I agree that it should be possible to trigger XML mode without the > prolog for use cases like yours. That won't help because HTML mode macros and XML mode macros aren't compatible. I really would like to see XML be the default, including Zope 3's skin macros. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list [email protected] Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
