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
> 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.
Zope3-dev mailing list