docutils-develop

[Docutils-develop] The HTML writer

[Adam C. <ad...@ch...>]

Hi.

Shouldn't the "html4css1" writer be renamed to "xhtml"? That's namely the
output it generates, and there is a *lot* of difference (when it comes to
browser support) between HTML 4 and XHTML. 

---
Adam Chodorowski <ad...@ch...>

Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, 
died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died 
similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.
    -- David L. Goodstein "States of Matter"

Re: [Docutils-develop] The HTML writer

[David G. <go...@us...>]

Adam Chodorowski wrote:
> Shouldn't the "html4css1" writer be renamed to "xhtml"?  That's
> namely the output it generates, and there is a *lot* of difference
> (when it comes to browser support) between HTML 4 and XHTML.

It's XHTML-compatible HTML 4 output (or is intended to be).  It
doesn't use any non-HTML tags.  I don't see a need to change the
module name, but it'd be easy to add an alias 'xhtml'->'html4css1' (in
docutils/writers/__init__.py, ``_writer_aliases``).

AFAICT the output is legal HTML 4.  Do you know of a browser that
doesn't support Docutils' (X)HTML output but *does* support HTML 4?

From the XHTML spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xhtml1-20011004):

    [XHTML] is intended to be used as a language for content that is
    both XML-conforming and, if some simple guidelines are followed,
    operates in HTML 4 conforming user agents.

-- 
David Goodger  <go...@us...>  Open-source projects:
  - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
    (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
  - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/

Re: [Docutils-develop] The HTML writer

[Adam C. <ad...@ch...>]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:51:30 -0400 David Goodger
<go...@us...> wrote:

[...]
 
> AFAICT the output is legal HTML 4.  

No, the output is *not* legal HTML 4 since it is in a XML syntax, not SGML
one. There are some differences between XML and SGML in what is allowed. For
example empty tags like <this/> do not exist in SGML, and therefore browsers
that don't support XHTML (and hence XML) might get confused.    

> Do you know of a browser that doesn't support Docutils' (X)HTML output but >
> *does* support HTML 4?

I'm not sure since I'm unable to test, but I have a feeling most AmigaOS
browsers do not support XHTML but do support HTML 4. For example, they have
mostly very spotty CSS support, so it wouldn't suprise. Whether or not this
results in bad display, I don't know (don't have the possibility to test it
right now; I might do so this weekend).

---
Adam Chodorowski <ad...@ch...>

Windows is a 32 bit patch to a 16 bit GUI based on a 8 bit operating
system, written for a 4 bit processor by a 2 bit company which cannot
stand 1 bit of competition.

Re: [Docutils-develop] The HTML writer

[Dethe E. <de...@ma...>]

On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 03:06, Adam Chodorowski wrote:
> No, the output is *not* legal HTML 4 since it is in a XML syntax, not SGML
> one. There are some differences between XML and SGML in what is allowed. For
> example empty tags like <this/> do not exist in SGML, and therefore browsers
> that don't support XHTML (and hence XML) might get confused.    

While this is true, browsers specifically ignore attributes they don't
recognize.  By putting a space between the final attribute or tagname
and the trailing slash (like <this /> or <this example="true" /> instead
of <this/> older browsers will treat it as an unknown attribute and
ignore it.

The only browser I'm aware of which still had trouble with XHTML 1.0
after the application of this convention was an old version of the AOL
browser.  This is based on following the discussion on the XHTML mailing
list for some time.

> > Do you know of a browser that doesn't support Docutils' (X)HTML output but >
> > *does* support HTML 4?

See above.

-- Dethe

Dethe Elza (Dad...@li...)
Weblog: http://livingcode.manilasites.com

Re: [Docutils-develop] The HTML writer

[David G. <go...@us...>]

[Adam]
>> No, the output is *not* legal HTML 4 since it is in a XML syntax,
>> not SGML one. There are some differences between XML and SGML in
>> what is allowed. For example empty tags like <this/> do not exist
>> in SGML, and therefore browsers that don't support XHTML (and
>> hence XML) might get confused.

[Dethe]
> While this is true, browsers specifically ignore attributes they
> don't recognize.  By putting a space between the final attribute or
> tagname and the trailing slash (like <this /> or <this
> example="true" /> instead of <this/> older browsers will treat it as
> an unknown attribute and ignore it.

Thanks for clearing that up, Dethe, from a practical angle I hadn't
heard before.  So although perhaps not strictly legal HTML, XHTML is
compatible with HTML 4.  (I won't get into how XML is supposed to be
legal SGML [given suitable low-level magic].)

I was asked to make the writer XHTML-compliant some time ago and
didn't see any harm.  It probably doesn't matter either way; by their
very nature, browsers (and any software dealing with HTML) have to be
lenient and forgiving.

Until there's a concrete example of a modern browser (one which
supports HTML 4 & CSS) which does *not* support XHTML, I'm not
concerned.  I doubt if I'll be concerned even if there *is* such an
example. ;-)

-- 
David Goodger  <go...@us...>  Open-source projects:
  - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
    (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
  - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/