After reading
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
and having some headaches with IE, I wonder whether helpers can be
configured to generate HTML instead of XHTML.
-- fxn
Well, there are plenty of people who disagree with hixie... His whole notion is based on the fact that if we serve XHTML with the text/html mime type, that browsers won''t be able to take advantage of the fact that it''s xhtml. But how is that any worse than just using html (which was obsolete six years ago)? But regardless "generate HTML instead of XHTML" makes no sense. What is rails going to do differently? You can put whatever DTD you want in your layout file. But you should certainly periodically run you generated pages (the actual html page) through the w3c''s validator (validator.w3.org). Just make your (x)html clean and valid. If you are having trouble with IE it is because browsers interpreted certain aspects of the specs differently. Following everything hixie says to the letter is NOT going to make your life any easier. I have done ALL of my html development as xhtml (mostly strict, but there''s always transistional if you need it) and I''ve never had a problem due to it being served as text/html. You should install the firebug extension for firefox and watch it''s error panel as you browse the web. It''s just stunning how much broken code (html, javascript, and css) there is on the web! The web -- HTTP and HTML -- is just one huge clusterfsck of a disaster. And if we insist on blowing off later versions of standards and sticking with outdated, deprecated, obsolete versions we will NEVER make anything better. Basically, what hixie is advocating is similar to saying we shouldn''t be writing rails apps because it''s hard to make them work on IIS, or because there''s no application server for it, or because there''s no corporation behind it, or whatever. Ack. This shit just makes me absolutely insane. b Xavier Noria wrote:> After reading > > http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml > > and having some headaches with IE, I wonder whether helpers can be > configured to generate HTML instead of XHTML. > > -- fxn > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:32, Ben Munat wrote:> Well, there are plenty of people who disagree with hixie... His > whole notion is based on the fact that if we serve XHTML with the > text/html mime type, that browsers won''t be able to take advantage > of the fact that it''s xhtml. But how is that any worse than just > using html (which was obsolete six years ago)?As I understand it, his point is that browsers revert to quirks mode, which is much worse than HTML 4.01 + CSS. That''s writing beautiful XHTML + CSS just to revert to HTML 3.something and have all kind of visual inconsistencies, not very appealing! I am talking from what I read in books, not that I''ve seen real examples. In my view, HTML 4.01 + CSS is as good as XHTML as far as clean code is concerned. You are responsible for that, not the spec. Additionally, HTML 4.01 is a W3C recommendation as of today, it is not deprecated or whatever. Hey, I am *not* saying that Rails _should_ be able to generate HTML, I am just asking whether it does. If it doesn''t that''s fine.> But regardless "generate HTML instead of XHTML" makes no sense. > What is rails going to do differently?Is not going to close empty elements with " />", which prevent the website from being valid HTML 4.01.> Just make your (x)html clean and valid. If you are having trouble > with IE it is because browsers interpreted certain aspects of the > specs differently. Following everything hixie says to the letter is > NOT going to make your life any easier. I have done ALL of my html > development as xhtml (mostly strict, but there''s always > transistional if you need it) and I''ve never had a problem due to > it being served as text/html.Yeah, all my website validates already as XHTML strict, but I am afraid of that quirks mode. It is relatively small and would be a matter of a couple of hours to convert it to HTML 4.01 if I had a flag for helpers. Anyway, I understand that the answer is that there''s no such a switch. In that case I''ll ponder whether I write my own img_tag and friends or stick with what I have. -- fxn
> As I understand it, his point is that browsers revert to quirks mode,Quirks mode happens under specific conditions, and it''s not hard to keep IE6 in "almost"-strict mode. Yes, IE6 still has bugs, but there''s no reason not to use XHTML just to avoid quirks mode. Read: http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html> Hey, I am *not* saying that Rails _should_ be able to generate HTML, > I am just asking whether it does. If it doesn''t that''s fine. > Is not going to close empty elements with " />", which prevent the > website from being valid HTML 4.01.The only part of Rails that generates (x)HTML are the tag and form helpers, no? And really the only ones that would need to not have a closing /> tag would be img, input, checkbox, correct? I would think it''d be easy enough to override or create your own image_tag etc helpers that support HTML4.> Yeah, all my website validates already as XHTML strict, but I am > afraid of that quirks mode. It is relatively small and would be aAgain, quirks mode doesn''t happen randomly. If you use the right doctype, avoid the <?xml declaration, and code your CSS to avoid IE bugs then you shouldn''t have a problem. Certainly there are plenty of people coding complicated XHTML Strict pages that have little-to-no problems in IE. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Feb 26, 2006, at 16:37, Chris Johanesen wrote:> The only part of Rails that generates (x)HTML are the tag and form > helpers, no? And really the only ones that would need to not have a > closing /> tag would be img, input, checkbox, correct? I would think > it''d be easy enough to override or create your own image_tag etc > helpers > that support HTML4.Well, I don''t but that as a justification. It is the same amount of work for the library author. Given a flag the code generates either ">" or " />" in the handful of relevant helpers, and makes the library more complete. You are supporting the current recommendations that way. My guess is that either it was simply not written, or maybe it is a way to encourage people to use XHTML. Well, I could send a patch and see.>> Yeah, all my website validates already as XHTML strict, but I am >> afraid of that quirks mode. It is relatively small and would be a > > Again, quirks mode doesn''t happen randomly. If you use the right > doctype, avoid the <?xml declaration, and code your CSS to avoid IE > bugs > then you shouldn''t have a problem. Certainly there are plenty of > people > coding complicated XHTML Strict pages that have little-to-no > problems in > IE.And then which Content-Type do you use? According to [*] if I send text/html the browser still uses a HTML parser which understands you are writing incorrect HTML with tag soup, which is the benefit? IE does not support application/xhtml+xml, which is what should be used [**]. Wouldn''t it be easier and cleaner to generate just correct HTML 4.01 + CSS? -- fxn [*] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ [**] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
Xavier, Someone posted about a plugin to break, er, revert your tags to non-closed just in the last few weeks. I know cuz I tangled with him over this issue. Search the archives for it. I would say that using such a plugin and *never* writing an un-closed tag directly in your view wouldn''t be too bad since you would hopefully be able to change one configuration and switch everything to xhtml later... other than the fact that you''re producing documents that you can''t parse with an xml parser. Maybe that''s something you''ll never want to do, but why not just make it xml-compliant right off the bat? Really, it is possible to make perfectly fine xhtml pages that work across browsers and serve them as text/html. Just use the xhtml transitional dtd like the quirksmode guy suggests and you''ll be fine. If you''re seeing differences between browsers it is likely a bug, plain and simple. I defy anyone to show me a page that renders correctly in all browsers because it''s html 4.01 (and of course the same page as xhtml 1.0 does not). On the other hand, there is so much garbage code on the web that -- as with most things about the human race -- I think we are past the point of no return. I find myself wondering why I even bother to argue. b PS: You know, actually I don''t even like xhtml... we should have all been serving straightup xml ages ago. Xavier Noria wrote:> On Feb 26, 2006, at 16:37, Chris Johanesen wrote: > >> The only part of Rails that generates (x)HTML are the tag and form >> helpers, no? And really the only ones that would need to not have a >> closing /> tag would be img, input, checkbox, correct? I would think >> it''d be easy enough to override or create your own image_tag etc helpers >> that support HTML4. > > > Well, I don''t but that as a justification. It is the same amount of > work for the library author. Given a flag the code generates either ">" > or " />" in the handful of relevant helpers, and makes the library more > complete. You are supporting the current recommendations that way. > > My guess is that either it was simply not written, or maybe it is a way > to encourage people to use XHTML. Well, I could send a patch and see. > >>> Yeah, all my website validates already as XHTML strict, but I am >>> afraid of that quirks mode. It is relatively small and would be a >> >> >> Again, quirks mode doesn''t happen randomly. If you use the right >> doctype, avoid the <?xml declaration, and code your CSS to avoid IE bugs >> then you shouldn''t have a problem. Certainly there are plenty of people >> coding complicated XHTML Strict pages that have little-to-no problems in >> IE. > > > And then which Content-Type do you use? According to [*] if I send > text/html the browser still uses a HTML parser which understands you > are writing incorrect HTML with tag soup, which is the benefit? IE does > not support application/xhtml+xml, which is what should be used [**]. > Wouldn''t it be easier and cleaner to generate just correct HTML 4.01 + > CSS? > > -- fxn > > [*] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ > [**] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> Well, I don''t but that as a justification. It is the same amount of > work for the library author. Given a flag the code generates either > ">" or " />" in the handful of relevant helpers, and makes the > library more complete. You are supporting the current recommendations > that way.I wasn''t implying that no one should add that functionality to Rails. I was merely suggesting an easy way for you to add it to your existing apps. I''m sure if you submitted a patch people would be receptive. What goes into rails is what DHH and other contributors need/want. And I guess no one has needed/wanted html4 support.> And then which Content-Type do you use? According to [*] if I send > text/html the browser still uses a HTML parser which understands you > are writing incorrect HTML with tag soup, which is the benefit? IEThe benefit is that even though the browser may not be seeing your doc as XML, your doc actually *is* XML, so in the future you won''t need to convert anything (like Ben said). It''s really all about foward compatibility. You could code mal-formed html and it still have it look fine in all current browsers right now. Also, if you look at the chart at: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ it says that XHTML1.0 Transitional MAY be served up as text/html and XHTML1.0 strict SHOULD NOT (not MUST NOT) be served up as text/html. I say the hell with content-types, all I really care about is that my pages look good in the major browsers, and that my code is as clean and versatile and future-proof as I can make it. Thus XHTML. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Anyone know why the rails_info/properties link on the 1.0 welcome page would be dependent upon irb? I''m playing around with some different Ubuntu configurations, and if I don''t install irb, the properties link doesn''t work and I get a debug stack indicating that the problem is caused by not being able to require irb. This isn''t a drastic showstopper or anything. I just thought it was curious behavior. Anyone encountered this before? If you haven''t, do you feel like doing some detective work? I''ve looked at railties/lib/ rails_info.rb and didn''t see anything suspicious. David