Derrick Hudson schrieb:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 05:00:37PM +0200, Tonico Strasser wrote:
| Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
| >>>Ah, good. It wasn't at all clear that you actually supported the
| >>>proposal :).
| >>Yes, if it's still possible to trigger HTML mode. But what about
| >>backwards compatibility if we make XML the default mode?
| >Well, the namespace stuff would probably account for a major breakage.
| >Thus, over the span of two Zope releases, XML mode could be forgiveful
| >when people forget to register namespace declarations. Of course, it
| >would render deprecation warnings.
| >I can't imagine a smooth transition for the other "features" of HTML
| >mode because they are like on/off switches. Either you convert <br/> to
| ><br /> or you don't. Same with <script ...></script> vs. <script ... />
| >and the other things.
| I ask because I don't know: if I serve a ZPT page in Zope 3 in XML mode,
| which mime type is sent to the browser? Is this independent of the ZTP
| XML/HTML mode?
As I just stated in the other subthread, I believe the HTTP
Content-Type is (should be) independent of the "mode" the ZPT
machinery uses to process the template. The <browser:page> directive
or some other suitable explicit configuration should control the
browser-specific items like content-type. I suppose maybe the
publisher could add its two sense and handle IE and Mozilla
differently presenting a facade to IE so it doesn't trip over itself
and presenting the more-correct-by-the-spec information to Mozilla.
FWIW: I just tried it out: If I change the content_type in
pagetemplate.py line 61 to 'text/xml' the default mode in page templates
changes to XML and they are served as, you guessed it, text/xml by default.
Zope3-dev mailing list