On 10/14/05, Tonico Strasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if the goal is to make PTs modeless and to dismiss HTML support (not
> XHTML support) and preserve some backwards compatibility this is OK for
> me. Because I don't deal with classic HTML.
> Yes. (However, most HTML browsers are happy and tolerate backward
> compatible XHTML code, the spec is telling us.)
Right. The specification is all about browsers, because very few
people in the HTML world really cared about the SGML aspect of HTML.
(Though there were a couple of books about using SGML on the web, I
may be the only person who bought them!)
> There are lots of XML mime types anyway. I think one question is wheter
> a Page Templates should know the mime type of the rendered document. If
> the answer is no, we could use the generic 'application/xml' (or
> 'application/zpt+xml') media type internally.
I think the Content-Type issue does need to be dealt with, but it
should be done as a separate proposal. For non-HTML/XHTML, I
generally have specialized view code anyway that can set setHeader().
> FWIW, besides appendix C, I don't belive there are any special things in
> the XHTML recommendation that makes XHTML different from regular XML for
> a XML parser.
For an XML parser, Appendix C doesn't matter at all. Appendix C only
matters when dealing with legacy HTML parsers.
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com>
"Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless." --B.F. Skinner
Zope3-dev mailing list