On Sep 28, 6:57 pm, Rob Hudson wrote:
> For lack of knowing about anything better, I keep falling back to
> Werkzeug's HTMLBuilder class[1]. Pulled out and stripped of comments,
> it weighs in at 77 lines of code...
That's not so bad. I was worried about pulling in a large dependency,
but 77 li
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> By way of greasing the wheels towards trunk: if the outcome of this
> mailing list thread was a wiki page that digested all the ideas,
> concerns and issues into a single page, it will make the final
> approval process much easier. Luk
On Sep 26, 7:33 pm, Simon Willison wrote:
> 1. a {% selfclose %} template tag:
>
>
>
> {% selfclose %} outputs either blank or " /" depending on the doctype.
I've added an experimental {% slash %} tag to django-html to address
the reusable XHTML/HTML templates problem. It's actually not as
On Sep 28, 5:20 pm, Max Battcher wrote:
> I really don't see what the fuss here is about. If we are worried about
> forwards-compatibility, HTML 5 takes care of it. If we are worried about
> better backwards-compatibility with HTML 4, everyone else is saying that
> the future is now and the focus
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Simon Willison
wrote:
> I don't think it would involve form widgets being rendered with
> templates simply because of the performance overhead - even with the
> template caching improvements it's still a lot of work just to output
> an input tag. It might involve
Simon Willison wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:17 am, Max Battcher wrote:
>> Furthermore, support for XHTML "5" (which is indeed a part of the HTML 5
>> standard) shows that XHTML 1's principles are still around and still
>> respected. Django's XHTML output can't be "out of date" if XHTML 5 is
>> consider
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Rob Hudson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Simon Willison
> wrote:
>> Yes - I looked briefly at how much work was involved in doing this and
>> it's not insubstantial, which is why I opted for string replacement
>> just to demonstrate the API. I'm co
This is unrelated Andreas. HTML5 has the exact same syntax as HTML4,
just new tags.
This thread is about syntax.
By the way, neither html4 nor xhtml are deprecated. HTML5 is still not
"officially released".
J. Leclanche / Adys
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Andreas wrote:
>
> html4 is dere
html4 is derecated.
xhtml is deprecated.
With google chrome frame out there theres absolutly no reason to not
begin with html5 already.
The longer we wait, the longer it will take before html5 becomes "the
it".
On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, Simon Willison wrote:
> On Sep 27, 10:49 am, veena wrote:
>
On Sep 27, 10:49 am, veena wrote:
> my bits to discussion about supporting various (X)HTML versions.
>
> 1) Problem with (X)HTML in python code (in applications)
> I discovered this python packagehttp://pypi.python.org/pypi/html/1.6
> It allows you to write "python like HTML syntax" and generates
Hi all,
my bits to discussion about supporting various (X)HTML versions.
1) Problem with (X)HTML in python code (in applications)
I discovered this python package http://pypi.python.org/pypi/html/1.6
It allows you to write "python like HTML syntax" and generates HTML or
XHTML.
2) Problem with (
On Sep 26, 6:34 pm, Rob Hudson wrote:
> This is the bit I was hoping we could get to. What would that
> refactoring look like, you think? Would it involve making forms use
> Templates? Or something else?
I don't think it would involve form widgets being rendered with
templates simply because
Another fun wrinkle to think about in this discussion is third-party
apps. Currently there are numerous useful apps out there which you
can't really use if you want to have HTML(5) output because they have
XHTML output hard-coded. The developers of these apps haven't done a
"bad" thing here, the
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Simon Willison wrote:
> Yes - I looked briefly at how much work was involved in doing this and
> it's not insubstantial, which is why I opted for string replacement
> just to demonstrate the API. I'm confident the exact functionality of
> django-html could be repl
On Sep 26, 10:17 am, Max Battcher wrote:
> Furthermore, support for XHTML "5" (which is indeed a part of the HTML 5
> standard) shows that XHTML 1's principles are still around and still
> respected. Django's XHTML output can't be "out of date" if XHTML 5 is
> considered a successor to XHTML 1.
Simon Willison wrote:
> HTML 5 is the
> final nail in the coffin - the refocusing of the W3C on that over
> XHTML 2 is an acknowledgement that XML is no longer the future of the
> Web. I actually think Django's XHTML output makes us look a bit out of
> date.
I don't think either of those conclusi
On Sep 26, 5:48 am, Rob Hudson wrote:
> First, let's not let this turn into an argument about HTML vs XHTML.
Oops, sorry!
> People have their preference one way or the other, and I believe
> Django should be agnostic.
Completely agree - that's why I'm in favour of a Django doctype switch
rathe
On Sep 26, 6:50 am, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> This is a non-issue.
Obviously I disagree - this is a tiny thing that has bugged me ever
since newforms. It's also something I find myself constantly
apologising to front-end developers about, who for the most part love
the Django template language
Mail fired a bit early there.
That said, I'm not against a {% doctype %} tag or anything. However, I
do think having an xhtml default is a Good Thing due to its backwards
compatibility. I'm also not entirely fond of the idea of having 100
different language outputs in Django. Why stop only after
This is a non-issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is valid html syntax. It's parsed
as valid by every html parser, and I'm positive this is the entire
point of xhtml: staying backwards-compatible with html.
J. Leclanche / Adys
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Rob Hudson wrote:
>
> Or: Why i
Or: Why is HTML4 such a PITA to get right?
Outline:
* What I know about HTML4 and Django
* Some info about past efforts and discussions
* Thoughts and curiosities about what we can do
What I know about HTML4 and Django
First, let's not let this turn into an argument
21 matches
Mail list logo
