On 9/17/06, Amir E. Aharoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WordPress is an example of a webserver software tool that does try to produce standard XHTML. It does it by default and very few bloggers who use it care about it or, for that matter, notice it. FuturisticPerl6WebPackage.pm should be like that too. I see no reason that autogenerated code won't conform to standard XHTML. Every deviation from standards and XML well-formedness should produce a warning.
The point is not to have autogenerated code conform to the XHTML standard. The point is to not use XHTML simply because it's shiny. XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 offer no practical benefits over HTML, but tangible disadvantages. Using XHTML unnecessarily complicates processing and adds lots of gotchas. If someone still wishes to use it, Web.pm (or Web::Toolkit or Moo.pm or whatever it's called eventually) should be perfectly capable of producing well-formed XHTML... but please, not XHTML by default.
Wishful thinking: FuturisticPerl6WebPackage.pm could have functionality that will output XHTML that adheres to both the w3c-standard and the defacto-standard (warning about tags that only works in certain browsers etc.) It might make it easier for developers to test their sites on several browsers and platforms.
The majority of problems arising in authoring documents for the Web are due to poor implementations of CSS, not poor implementations of HTML. If the XHTML produced by the module adheres to the W3C standard, there won't be any elements that only work in certain browsers (with the exception of <abbr>... no others I can think of offhand). Aankhen -- "I meant *our* species." "You said *your* species." "Evidently I am insane. May I go now?"
