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
> 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
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com>
"Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless." --B.F. Skinner
Zope3-dev mailing list