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

[Kasper Skårhøj]

Hi Christoph.

I can understand your reasoning and theoretically agree that
HTML-generation abstraction would be great. I even think it would be
feasible from an implementation view-point (it could be done in phases).
Dan Frost even implemented OBTS in this way AFAIK.

However; I'm deeply concerned about the additional processing time it
will imply for generating a page. I'm not saying I know exactly what the
impact would be but once we go down this road there is not turning back.

- kasper



On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 18:20, Christopher wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> --- Michael Scharkow <mscharkow at gmx.net> 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.
> 
> 
> I don't buy this objection. HTML 4.01 is a current standard, and IMO the
> onus is on whoever would like to drop support for HTML 4.01 to come up with
> compelling reasons for not supporting all current versions of (X)HTML
> instead of asking for others to come up with reasons for continuing to
> support non-deprecated versions of HTML.
> 
> One of the very nicest things about T3 from a development point of view
> right now is that it interferes relatively little with whatever coding
> methods are chosen. Furthermore, when it comes to the differences between
> the non-strict versions of xhtml and html, the differences are actually
> fairly minor (e.g. both allow most presentational attributes). If what
> we're talking about here is moving to xhtml 1.0 strict then, even though I
> would love the web to suddenly be an xhtml strict place, I still have to
> object.
> 
> 
> 
> > 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)
> 
> 
> 
> It's my opinion that this problem could be approached another way; instead
> of supporting one changeable standard or another in the core, we should
> probably abstract all Typo3's html generation to a separate class that can
> be more easily upgraded/extended (though perhaps this might be an
> unreasonably large task at this point?) Of course backwards compatiblity
> would need to be maintained, but abstracting the markup generation would
> allow different doctypes to be more easily supported.
> 
> 
> > 3. Creating new example templates that are XHTML, use CSC for rendering 
> > and show more of the new features, thus replacing the old glck, green, 
> > business templates. Can we distribute those with the new import 
> > extension, or should we create an example templates extension, like the 
> > accessibility template?
> 
> 
> Agreed - these are good ideas.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> 
> May be a good idea. As long as the rigid approach does not interfere with
> flexibility :)
> 
> -Christopher
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Make Yahoo! your home page 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> _______________________________________________
> 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