Shane, Sorry about sending from the wrong email address - thanks for grabbing the relevant bit and putting it back in the thread.
On 3/4/10 9:47 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Kevin Kalupson wrote: >> The importance to me is that there isn't a regression to the duplicate >> xml headers when templates render. I like to validate my templates as I >> go and not have to hack them to then test my rendered template. > > Good point. If you're statically validating all templates, then putting > the doctype in every template is a good thing. I think that this is the way to go with zpt and is the often forgotten beauty of zpt. Because you can do this is what makes it better than a lot of other templating languages out there. However, if you're not > statically validating, then putting the doctype in every template is > hazardous, because it's easy to forget, and if you forget, the browser > quietly slips into quirks mode, causing insidious little CSS bugs. > > The moral: I guess static template validation would have saved me those > hours I spent debugging CSS this week, and maybe putting the doctype in > the main template has more cons than pros. > > Shane > -Kevin _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
