XHTML and "big" features was Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] $_GET variables

[Patrick B. <pb...@pi...>]

On Friday, November 22, 2002, at 02:47  PM, Alex Ezell wrote:

> To that end, is there any idea of how much of the code generated by=20
> phpiCalendar is XHTML-compliant. I haven't done a thorough enough look=20=

> see at the HTML bits to have an idea. I would like to see this project=20=

> move toward 100% XHTML compatibility, if possible. Of course, this=20
> being the developer list, I offer my services in accomplishing either=20=

> of the above suggestions.


Before we go down this road, you might want to take a peek at:

Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

and also:

A Warning to Others
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/11/21.html#a_warning_to_others
Someday, I=92ll upgrade myself from =93SHOULD NOT chase after bleeding =
edge=20
technologies that don=92t solve real world problems=94 to =93MUST NOT =
chase=20
after bleeding edge technologies that don=92t solve real world =
problems=94.


One of the things that immediately attracted my to phpiCalendar was the=20=

'drop it in, and it works' installation.  There has been lots of talk=20
of grander features, and I'm wondering if a potential fork of the code=20=

would be prudent to make sure they ease of install is always there.  If=20=

all the easy can be contained in the prefs, there should be no need to=20=

fork off into a "lite" version.  A fork would be a pain for many, many=20=

reasons, I know.  Just tossing stuff out...imagine putting in support=20
for Smarty templates or databases.

Pat=