From: Yuri T. <qar...@gm...> - 2009-01-27 20:09:09
|
> I used "method" simply because that's what was in the ElementTree > alpha. I suppose "format" would be just as accurate, if not more so. What about "html_version" to make it quite explicit? >> Oh, and should the options be "html" & "xml" or "html" & "xhtml"? I would make it more explicit. Perhaps, "html_4" and "xhtml_1_1". This will give us room for offering "html_5" and "xml_2_0" options later and will also make it more clear what exactly we are supporting. Note, for example, that our default output is not compatible with XHTML 2.0. > You mentioned licenses in an earlier email -- most of the additions > here are lifted straight out of Fredrik Lundh's most recent 1.3 alpha, > do you think we should check with him? Depends on what the license for ElementTree is. Depending on what it is, we may or may not be able to take chunks from it and include it in our BSD code. It's best to ask. - yuri -- http://spu.tnik.org/ |