Re: wrapping of tabbed areas

Jürgen Ragaller wrote:
> Hi, Jörn
> 
> Am 16.11.2007 um 13:01 schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:
>>
>> over my very dead corpse.
>> if a certain software vendor cannot be bothered to
provide the most 
>> trivial bugfixes and read a f"$§%ing spec,
that's really not our problem.
>> anyone with half a brain can download and
understand the relevant 
>> standards documents, and if the world's largest
pile of software 
>> engineers can't be bothered, well, tough luck for
their users.
> 
> Just to make shure we don't misunderstand each other on
this one.
> The removing of the xml declaration (remove only
<?xml version="1.0" 
> encoding="UTF-8"?>) would not make the
page invalid:
> 
> http://validator.w3.org/chec
k?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webstandards.org%2F


sigh. you are of course right, the xml declaration is not
mandatory.
but it does provide a very unambigous hint as to xml version
and 
encoding that makes a whole lot more sense than those
grafted-on <meta/> 
tags with their "; content-encoding=FOO". and
there is absolutely no 
excuse whatsoever to change one's parsing behaviour
depending on this 
processing instruction. if it were, the instruction should
say <?IE 
createAFsckingMessOfMyCode="yes"?>.

well, i don't want to punish IE users (although somebody
should do it, 
someday), and much less fellow admins who have to get their
jobs done. 
if it can be demonstrated that the xml declaration can be
omitted 
without the slightest bit of regression in xml-conformant
browsers 
(including the encoding setting), then well, let's omit it
and wait for 
microsoft and the last of their broken browsers to die of
old age. 
should be any day now 

or maybe we could resurrect a server-side browser selector
and use two 
different xhtml serializers. but this would imply having a
centralized 
final transformation step in the global sitemap, unless we
want to 
duplicate this selector all over the place. i have put a
patch in 
bugzilla a while ago that tries to accomplish this, but it
does so by 
breaking all badly modularized features (bxe, webdav and
some other 
ad-hoc stuff currently in the default pub sitemap).

-- 
Jörn Nettingsmeier

"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000
lines of code."
   - Ken Thompson.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

Hi Jörn

Am 20.11.2007 um 20:56 schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:

> Jürgen Ragaller wrote:
>> Hi, Jörn
>> Am 16.11.2007 um 13:01 schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:
>>>
>>> over my very dead corpse.
>>> if a certain software vendor cannot be bothered
to provide the  
>>> most trivial bugfixes and read a f"$§%ing
spec, that's really not  
>>> our problem.
>>> anyone with half a brain can download and
understand the relevant  
>>> standards documents, and if the world's largest
pile of software  
>>> engineers can't be bothered, well, tough luck
for their users.
>> Just to make shure we don't misunderstand each
other on this one.
>> The removing of the xml declaration (remove only
<?xml  
>> version="1.0"
encoding="UTF-8"?>) would not make the page
invalid:
>> http://validator.w3.org/chec
k?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webstandards.org%2F

>
> sigh. you are of course right, the xml declaration is
not mandatory.
> but it does provide a very unambigous hint as to xml
version and  
> encoding that makes a whole lot more sense than those
grafted-on  
> <meta/> tags with their ";
content-encoding=FOO". and there is  
> absolutely no excuse whatsoever to change one's parsing
behaviour  
> depending on this processing instruction. if it were,
the  
> instruction should say <?IE
createAFsckingMessOfMyCode="yes"?>.
>
> well, i don't want to punish IE users (although
somebody should do  
> it, someday), and much less fellow admins who have to
get their jobs  
> done. if it can be demonstrated that the xml
declaration can be  
> omitted without the slightest bit of regression in
xml-conformant  
> browsers (including the encoding setting), then well,
let's omit it  
> and wait for microsoft and the last of their broken
browsers to die  
> of old age. should be any day now 
>
>
> or maybe we could resurrect a server-side browser
selector and use  
> two different xhtml serializers. but this would imply
having a  
> centralized final transformation step in the global
sitemap, unless  
> we want to duplicate this selector all over the place.
i have put a  
> patch in bugzilla a while ago that tries to accomplish
this, but it  
> does so by breaking all badly modularized features
(bxe, webdav and  
> some other ad-hoc stuff currently in the default pub
sitemap).

We avoid the xml declaration for all our websites - I am not
aware of  
any side effects.

My suggestion is to leave the already inserted
ie6hacksonly.css in for  
2.0 and remove the xml declaration and the quirks mode
override part  
of ie6hacksonly.css. for 2.0.1.

Jürgen
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org