Re: [wgo] XHTML1.0 Strict vs HTML 4.01

["Quim Gil" <quimgil gmail com>]

2006/12/6, Ricky Zhou <ricky zhou gmail com>:

Somebody *please* either start moving this debate forward or admit that
those points completely kill the case for XHTML (heh, I wish).

What about this:

a) Your position is right and consistent. You have done your best to explain all the technical aspects, pros, cons and people like me have learned a lot. Thank you! You want the best technical solution for wgo and I agree with you that going for HTML we would not encounter any problem now, and probably wouldn't encounter them the day we decide to move to XHTML. The fact that Olav agrees with you has a lot of value to me because I Trust This Guy.

b) XHTML was the format agreed in our policies when we discussed them. We can update and improve these policies, so your suggestion and the debate is pertinent. In the meantime we have chosen a CMS that happens to serve XHTML, which is ok since this was what the policies required.

c) We are not going to hack Plone to sever HTML. Serving XHTML as not-XHTML might not be an accurate solution but it works and it's widely implemented. I take your point that this is in fact a bow to IE - there is probably a lot of truth here and therefore I eat my own words about the political agenda.

Conclusion 1: let's keep XHTML. It's not the best solution in absolute terms but it's the best solution we have here and now, in pragmatical terms.

Conclusion 2: I might have added more debatable aspects in this email. Really, it's not worth keeping the discussion at least in the 2.18 release cycle. We are going to implement Plone as it is and we all better invest our time in the big load of pending tasks that require attention.

Thank you very much to everybody taking part in this thread. Even if at the end nothing is moving I believe we have all learned something.

-- 
Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org