I have written a very small Rails plugin which makes it spit HTML back at you instead of XHTML. Find details here: http://dev.turnipspatch.com/trac/wiki/HTMLOutput Hope it''s useful to someone! Jon -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Just curious... Why would one need html instead of xhtml? Hmm, also, looking at the page you provided, I don''t see what these three methods have to do with html vs. xhtml. No, wait... I see that the "tag" method allows one to suppress the closing "/". Is the ever a situation any more where it''s necessary to suppress the closing slash? b Jon Leighton wrote:> I have written a very small Rails plugin which makes it spit HTML back > at you instead of XHTML. Find details here: > http://dev.turnipspatch.com/trac/wiki/HTMLOutput > > Hope it''s useful to someone! > > Jon >
Ben Munat wrote:> Just curious... Why would one need html instead of xhtml?If I can be forgiven for linking to myself, see here: http://turnipspatch.com/xhtml-vs-html/> Hmm, also, looking at the page you provided, I don''t see what these > three methods have to > do with html vs. xhtml. No, wait... I see that the "tag" method allows > one to suppress the > closing "/". Is the ever a situation any more where it''s necessary to > suppress the closing > slash?That''s to do with the difference between XHTML syntax and HTML syntax. Because XHTML is supposed to be well-formed (as it is supposedly a dialect of XML), stand-alone tags must be self closing, like this: <br/> However, in HTML that is invalid, and it must be like so: <br> Hence the plugin. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Yeah, that''s what I thought you''d say... sigh. And all I have to say is "don''t drink the hixie koolaid!" :-& b Jon Leighton wrote:> Ben Munat wrote: > >>Just curious... Why would one need html instead of xhtml? > > > If I can be forgiven for linking to myself, see here: > http://turnipspatch.com/xhtml-vs-html/ > > >>Hmm, also, looking at the page you provided, I don''t see what these >>three methods have to >>do with html vs. xhtml. No, wait... I see that the "tag" method allows >>one to suppress the >>closing "/". Is the ever a situation any more where it''s necessary to >>suppress the closing >>slash? > > > That''s to do with the difference between XHTML syntax and HTML syntax. > Because XHTML is supposed to be well-formed (as it is supposedly a > dialect of XML), stand-alone tags must be self closing, like this: > > <br/> > > However, in HTML that is invalid, and it must be like so: > > <br> > > Hence the plugin. >
Ben Munat wrote:> Yeah, that''s what I thought you''d say... sigh. And all I have to say is > "don''t drink the > hixie koolaid!"Am I saying "You must use this plugin or you are an idiot!" ? Or "Everyone must agree with me!" Perhaps if you took a moment to read my post you could at least credit me with a mind of my own and not try to imply I''m just following the views of Ian Hixie. Whatever. I want to output HTML. Others may too, so I have released the plugin. I''m not trying to force anyone to use it. So what''s your problem? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> Yeah, that''s what I thought you''d say... sigh. And all I have > to say is "don''t drink the hixie koolaid!"Well, I hear ya, but some people think the mime/type issue is important and some people just prefer to use the HTML 4.01 DTD. Both are perfectly valid reasons as with choosing to use one of the XHTML DTDs. Bottom line is that this plug-in helps web developers author well-formed, valid, and interoperable web pages and that''s a Good Thing for everyone! :)
Ironically, I started that reply several times and actually decided not to reply at all for a while. Then I decided that it''s fair for me to express my opinion on the mime-type hype. I figured I''d do it without going into a lot of argumentative explanations; I was hoping to be relatively non-confrontational. I can see that I failed in that endeavor. For the record, I think it''s great that you made a plug-in and are sharing it with people. I don''t think you are insisting that anyone do anything. Bravo. I do, however, find it extremely sad and perplexing that six years after the w3c laid the mistake that was html to rest we are still having this discussion... and if certain bloggers you link to are to be believed, the side of progress and standards is losing! And the smack-in-the-face icing-on-the-cake is that this is all because of Microsoft''s rampant disregard for standards and shoddy programming practices. (50 billion dollars in the bank and they can''t spend a little bit of money to fix their POS browser!) So, in a nutshell, *that* is my problem. I keep telling myself that I should just ignore all the bickering and do my work as I see fit, but it''s hard to ignore this... in much the same manner that its hard to ignore someone arguing for the genetic superiority of one race or for the equal treatment of creationism as a scientific theory. That''s why I said "don''t drink the koolaid". Hixie''s arguments appear perfectly well-founded in their face. However, a) who cares if explorer parses a file as tag soup? I''m making my documents well-formed, valid, and standards compliant because *it''s the right thing to do...* I do it for myself and for browsers that can handle it. b) Giving in to this and creating more and more and more content on the web that will not conform to the few simple, basic rules required for a valid xml document is just plain insanity. Really, there''s just a few stunningly simple rules to make your web documents xml-compatible and therefore open up the whole world of xml processing. I cannot fathom what is so #*(@$#)! hard about this. The only thing I can figure is that someone or something really pissed Hixie off and he''s determined to fuck over the web standards movement. He''s found a little crack in the wall and he''s just gonna keep scrabbling away at it. In any case, I have no problem with you or your plugin. Actually, it''s a really good idea because you can just remove the arg that suppresses the closing slash and switch back to valid tags. It would probably be even better if you could make that switch in one place. So, there''s my opinion, for better or worse... feel free to ignore. b PS: http://webstandards.org/learn/askw3c/oct2003.html Jon Leighton wrote:> Ben Munat wrote: > >>Yeah, that''s what I thought you''d say... sigh. And all I have to say is >>"don''t drink the >>hixie koolaid!" > > > Am I saying "You must use this plugin or you are an idiot!" ? Or > "Everyone must agree with me!" Perhaps if you took a moment to read my > post you could at least credit me with a mind of my own and not try to > imply I''m just following the views of Ian Hixie. > > Whatever. I want to output HTML. Others may too, so I have released the > plugin. I''m not trying to force anyone to use it. So what''s your > problem? >
Ben Munat wrote:> So, there''s my opinion, for better or worse... feel free to ignore.Thanks, I shall. I could make replies to any or all of your points, but that''s not what this thread is for. This thread is about a plugin I made, not whether one should use the plugin or not. So please refrain from voicing your opinions in that regard. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Jon
> So please refrain from voicing your opinions in that regard.
This forum is for learning new stuff, improving ourselves and exchanging
ideas.
Please refrain from trying to refrain people from writing polite and
intesting contents about interesting subjects.
Ben was not ranting, and his prose was richer in info than 80-90% of
this forum typical traffic.
He could have started a new thread though.
> .. I could make replies to any or all of your points,
I''m genuinely interested in hearing them.
> that''s not what this thread is for.
This forum is for learning, improving ourselves and exchanging ideas.
Alain
Alain Ravet wrote:> > So please refrain from voicing your opinions in that regard. > > This forum is for learning new stuff, improving ourselves and exchanging > ideas. > Please refrain from trying to refrain people from writing polite and > intesting contents about interesting subjects. > Ben was not ranting, and his prose was richer in info than 80-90% of > this forum typical traffic. > He could have started a new thread though.Okay, maybe I was slightly angered by his comment about hixie koolaid, and that perhaps coloured my replies. Sorry. I have no objection to the discussion of HTML vs XHTML, but I do -- strongly -- feel it''s inappropriate for a Ruby on Rails forum. It''s just wildly off topic.> > .. I could make replies to any or all of your points, > > I''m genuinely interested in hearing them.I don''t really want to reply to Ben''s comments because I am sure that''ll just end up in endless debate. XHTML vs HTML is a very hot topic. I don''t want to go over it again really -- I made a blog post voicing my opinions on the situation a while back (linked already in this thread but its at http://turnipspatch.com/xhtml-vs-html/), so if you wish to hear my opinions you are more than welcome to read it. I also recommend reading any or all of the other articles linked from my post. I also recommend reading the copious comments (which alone are an indication of how controversial the topic is). -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Jon
> I also recommend reading any or all of the other articles linked
from my post. I also
> recommend reading the copious comments (which alone are an
indication of
> how controversial the topic is).
I''ve just done that, and I learned quite a few interesting things on
the
way.
Thanks for the info.... and it makes exactly my point: I would have
missed it, if the thread had only been about your plugin, and not its
context.
Alain
One last comment: peace. I agree that the XHTML vs. HTML debate has become nothing short of a holy war. And I confess that I''m prone to button pushing. Must have something to do with have a bullying big brother. As I said previously, bravo for making the plugin. I hope to someday contribute something to the rails community (other than my big mouth). b PS: Alain, thanks for getting my back. Jon Leighton wrote:> Alain Ravet wrote: > >> > So please refrain from voicing your opinions in that regard. >> >>This forum is for learning new stuff, improving ourselves and exchanging >>ideas. >>Please refrain from trying to refrain people from writing polite and >>intesting contents about interesting subjects. >>Ben was not ranting, and his prose was richer in info than 80-90% of >>this forum typical traffic. >>He could have started a new thread though. > > > Okay, maybe I was slightly angered by his comment about hixie koolaid, > and that perhaps coloured my replies. Sorry. I have no objection to the > discussion of HTML vs XHTML, but I do -- strongly -- feel it''s > inappropriate for a Ruby on Rails forum. It''s just wildly off topic. > > >> > .. I could make replies to any or all of your points, >> >>I''m genuinely interested in hearing them. > > > I don''t really want to reply to Ben''s comments because I am sure that''ll > just end up in endless debate. XHTML vs HTML is a very hot topic. I > don''t want to go over it again really -- I made a blog post voicing my > opinions on the situation a while back (linked already in this thread > but its at http://turnipspatch.com/xhtml-vs-html/), so if you wish to > hear my opinions you are more than welcome to read it. I also recommend > reading any or all of the other articles linked from my post. I also > recommend reading the copious comments (which alone are an indication of > how controversial the topic is). >