Tonico Strasser wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
>> 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.
> But that's why ZTPs have HTML mode, no?
Yes. But rather than helping us, those features are more and more in our
way. And with XML and HTML modes being incompatible, I rather opt for
XML mode and sacrifice a small convenience that I could even bring back
by using additional tools.
>>> 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.
> Yes, would also like to see this.
Ah, good. It wasn't at all clear that you actually supported the
Zope3-dev mailing list