Den 17. aug. 2018 10:04, skrev Carlton Gibson: > Only half-joking, the diff here makes me want to weep. For me, 150 > files and 1803 line changes is just too much to > enforce something that is of minority appeal.
The changes are simple. Use '/>' at end of self-closing tags and give all attributes values. And most of it is test-code. It is only the 'attrs.html'-files that are the real change (when it comes to giving an attribute a value). > On XHTML5 generally, I have no problem with properly closing tags, and > I guess `/>` if you must but I look at `checked="checked"` and my > personal response is that I just don't want that. > I understand the benefits of XML but I think trying to enforce it in a > web framework in 2018 and beyond is skating to where the puck was, so > to speak. Developers expect HTML5 and it we don't go with that as a > default every PR that comes in will need "correcting" for the XML > syntax, and we'll end up with a 10:1 increase in new issues asking why > we're not taking advantage the new, more concise, syntax. Unfortunately web-development has been and are plagued by fashion waves. First everything should be XML, now everything should be JSON. We first had web services and XML-RPC, then REST and now perhaps GraphQL. I agree that `checked="checked"` is not cool, but that's beside the point. It is the standard and frameworks and library need to be extra careful to support them. It is possible to write `checked=""`, if that helps. I think, however, that it is more clear if we give it a value. By the way, the syntax is not new it is the old syntax from HTML4. I have spent quite some time cleaning up ill-formed HTML4. > > You want to serve the pages you generate with XHTML. Fine. (Beyond > custom widget templates what do you need?) But (from the PR) why do we > need to serve (e.g.) the Admin so? Or have the examples in the docs > (and code comments) be XHTML compliant? Or the template we use to test > the email sending functionality? (I appreciate you probably scripted > these changes.) I avoided updating the docs myself. The revert of a previous commit has changed it. The comments can be changed to the HTML (SGML) style if it helps. I did not add the XML style of boolean attributes to the docs, but I can remove the '/>' if it helps. > > Does it really matter if framework provided pages use HTML5? Why? (If > it does matter can you not warp a middleware around HTML Tidy, or > similar, to do the conversion for you?) > > If there are barriers to you creating XHTML pages, we can look at > those, but I'd be -1 on bringing it back framework wide. I still would like a technical answer to why not support both standards? And again XHTML5 is HTML5 with valid XML syntax. So valid XHTML5 is valid HTML5, so there is no problem for a framework to provide HTML5 it should just be done in the most compatible manner. Regards -- Nils Fredrik Gjerull ----------------------------- "Ministry of Eternal Affairs" Computer Department ( Not an official title :) ) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6c958426-b4d1-a99d-c47f-2c106f8fc1cf%40gjerull.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
