On 10/14/05, Tonico Strasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HTML mode is still useful for user agents that use a SGML parser instead > of a XML parser and would break if they had to deal with real XML code. > I know, such user agents are very rare, Netscape 4 comes into my mind. > (If you want to make Netscape 4 burn just put a <br/> somewhere in the > source). > > Why does HTML mode help? It converts <foo/> to <foo />.
We can make the XML mode do this as well, though, and would need to in order to have modeless output. Where you want a "real" SGML parser to handle the document, the slash isn't acceptable. <foo/> isn't accepted for empty elements by most SGML parsers, that's new syntax for XML. The W3C HTML validator, for example, won't accept it. Using the XHTML backward-compatibility guidelines does not provide for valid HTML; those are designed for happy browsers, not valid HTML. > MSIE is known to handle XHTML pretty well althought it doesn't use a XML > parser. IE can deal with <br/> but it can't deal with <script/>. You > have to write <script></script> for IE. Yes, which seems like it is a case that might need special handling, since we want that to be automatic. Since for XML <script/>, <script />, and <script></script> are semantically identical, I don't see a problem with that. > From this information I come to the conclusion that it would be best to > simply follow the compatibility guidlines in appendix C. HTML mode helps > me to do this by inserting a space before the closing slash. I suspect the right thing is to make sure XML mode supports the XHTML recommendations, since those are designed to be entirely XML-acceptable. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> "Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless." --B.F. Skinner _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com