[Typo3-dev] XHTML compliancy, old TypoScript and beyond..

[Kasper Skårhøj]

Hi Michael.

I'm against adapting "obsolete" code to XHTML - my approach always was
that the modern parts of TypoScript should be. To my knowledge only
<textareas> doesn't deliver XHTML yet.

So:
- Static Templates (the "Kaspers 11"; GLÛCK, TU etc..) will NOT change
but rather be faded out from the public conscience.
- If you please (YES PLEASE!); new, modern-looking new-bee templates are
encouraged ... in extensions of course.
- The most remove and old-fashioned part of TypoScript should not be
adapted if it is not used in modern sites - we will rather note in TSref
if they don't support XHTML
- CSC should of course be fully XHTML compliant.


Issue with textarea: The reason for keeping the wrap-attribute is that
with Netscape 6 or 7 I couldn't make it work with wrapped and
non-wrapped lines in textareas without having both the row and wrap
attribute. I don't know if this chaos is solved but if it is then fine.
I just need the following: A way to have non-wrapped lines and
virtual-wrap lines in textarea fields will works across all modern
browsers. 

- kasper



On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 16:51, Michael Scharkow wrote:
> [this is basically a reply to an old post by Masi but I wanted it to be 
> on top in your newsreaders ;)]
> 
> Martin Kutschker wrote:
> 
>  > I'm a bit disappointed that besides a few use "xhtml compliancy" quite
>  > often nobody bothers to point out any specific bugs. Especially as it 
>  > is said that some users have even patches.
> 
> Hi Masi,
> 
> we've just discussed the compliancy issue in the bugfixers list, but I 
> have not found any definitive decision on the issues of what should be 
> supported. Maybe we can re-animate this thread in order to get stuff 
> sorted out for 3.8
> 
> 1. What is the current policy for TYPO3 3.8+?
> According to the T3 CGL, we require XHTML (transitional) / CSS 
> compliance. Practically, at the moment, we semi-support HTML4 and XHTML 
> 1.x in TYPO3, resulting in things like xhtml_cleaning and various 
> conditional stuff which is either implemented already, or requested for 
> cases in which valid xhtml is invalid html4.
> Various people, including Wolfgang Klinger and me, have proposed to 
> concentrate on XHTML only, dropping HTML4 support. I find no sensible 
> objections to that, other than the typical legacy issues ("We started 
> with HTML4 in 1999 and want to continue that...")
> Supporting both valid HTML4 and XHTML still requires a lot of work I'd 
> rather spend somewhere else.
> 
> 2. Once we do settle on a policy, can we provide the users with the 
> appropriate, consistent, valid, bug-free content rendering? CSC has come 
> a long way, but there still seem to be quite a lot of issues with 
> "buggy" TS.
> 
> As a result, I see the following todos:
> 
> 1. Making -core and sysexts completely XHTML 1.x compliant real soon now.
> 2. Removing the obsolete, non-XHTML TS from default installations (like 
> content(default), cSet, basically most of the static templates, as 
> listed in http://typo3.org/documentation/document-library/doc_statictmpl)
> 
> 3. Creating new example templates that are XHTML, use CSC for rendering 
> and show more of the new features, thus replacing the old glück, green, 
> business templates. Can we distribute those with the new import 
> extension, or should we create an example templates extension, like the 
> accessibility template?
> 
> I know this has been discussed a few times, but solving this issue would 
> spare us a lot of user requests ("I want to XHTMLize my 
> content(default)") and bug reports. Plus, a more rigid approach (like 
> the plone people have) would make it newbie-friendlier with valid and 
> modern out-of-the-box-templates.
> 
> Greetings,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Typo3-dev mailing list
> Typo3-dev at lists.netfielders.de
> http://lists.netfielders.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/typo3-dev
-- 
- kasper

*******************
Happy new year! - My email address is now: 

		kasper2005 at typo3.com