> Do you mean we should remove the current loader selection code and > revert to the original, document.write()-only, source loader? That's > not a good move, in my opinion, since we would end up in not even > being able to load an XHTML source build; this would mean making a > release build after every change to source files (not exactly what one > would expect from an interpreted language) and would make development > so much cumbersome that XHTML would become de-facto unsupported.
> Well, it seems nobody is really interested in this issue: am I the > only one who is trying to use qooxdoo into XHTML documents? I think it's important to support XHTML - it is the standard, after all. Could the proposed modification by Alessandro be incorporated and made available as an option in the compiler, to be turned on in a custom make file? Then some good documentation would be all that's needed. It seems to me that qooxdoo tries to find the "right" way to do things. Not supporting the "right" HTML standard is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot... Hugh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
