| doctype [message #158528] |
Mon, 02 March 2009 02:52  |
Marticus
Messages: 272
Registered: June 2002
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
|
What is the purpose of xhtml transitional in the theme? If fud doesn't have any xml-based features, this is entirely unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: doctype [message #158535 is a reply to message #158529] |
Mon, 02 March 2009 21:04  |
Marticus
Messages: 272
Registered: June 2002
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the reply, Frank.
The first three reasons are bogus, the last is most important. I believe, however, XML support should be on or off, depending on the forum administrator's needs.
As for the reasons, again, the first three are bogus statements, the third being bogus because of the masses believing the first two. 4.01 is a perfectly good markup language standard and is not superceded by xhtml, in fact, 5.0 is still in the works. It has been around long enough to have its bugs worked out and every browser supports it effortlessly.
The only advantages of using xhtml are beyond the scope of the base work of FUDforum. I agree with one blogger who suggests that it really only provides you with the ability to seamlessly mix in content from other markup languages by using xml namespaces and it allows you to utilize xml tools.
As for w3c "pushing" xhtml, yes they advocate it because it works as intended, but they don't, as far as I know, push it on authors who have no need for it simply because it is there.
There are two communities on either side of the markup language fence. The first believes you should blindly use xhtml simply because it is there, regardless if they need xml support. The second believes you should use html 4.01 unless you need xml support. I jumped off the xhtml bandwagon to join the more conservative group because it made more sense. Why bloat my code with extra support for something I don't need?
As for wasting your time, I disagree wholeheartedly. I believe you did the legwork that will make it easier for me to create a method for turning off and on xml support. The template is easy to handle, but the .inc and .t files have quite a few non-paired tags that need a '/' at the end for xhtml. Most of them are br and can be handled by storing it and changing it in a variable. Other things can be moved to the templates from the src files. Some things can simply be avoided, such as pairing paragraph tags opposed to leaving them open. If need be, two templates can be used, one called default-xml if it becomes too burdensome to maintain in a single template. The includes might be a little more difficult, but I'm making this a FUD learning venture. I'm sure it will be interesting and difficult/time-consuming, but well worth it to keep me busy.
As for xhtml integration into the code of fudforum, I think that is always something that should be left to the theming/templating system. There is always a way to avoid using specific markup languages in the core of your project if you have a well-designed theming system, which FUD has. I've complained about this for a very long time, not in fud, but in general. I've had to modify applications because my themes may be html 4.01 strict, but they don't pass validation tests because of core elements.
As for validation tests, xml style tags aside, there are places where BR and other inline tags are used out of context in the default theme. I've been going through and fixing those as I find them. I don't put a great deal of stress on w3c strictness and validators in general but they are a good way to find problems with my code, and I hate seeing things in applications that can be avoided to make my theming something easier.
Anyway, I apologize for the wall of text, but those are my thoughts on this topic.
[Updated on: Mon, 02 March 2009 21:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: doctype [message #158585 is a reply to message #158547] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 06:11 |
Marticus
Messages: 272
Registered: June 2002
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
When did you go through and make the changes to all the non-paired flags? I just ran across an issue editing a post with images and it didn't convert the html to fud code. I think I am the one who broke it, but now I'm not so certain. Testing it real fast...
<img src="index.php?t=getfile&id=5508&private=0" border="0" alt="index.php?t=getfile&id=5508&private=0" />
Nope, when I edit, the above code never goes back to fud code.
[Updated on: Thu, 05 March 2009 06:13] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]