On 12/29/05, Jeff Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again, I don't usually get involved in arguments like this because I simply > don't use the templates (my pages are static HTML with Ajax calls), but one > of my initial complaints with Kid is that it *changes* my code. > > If I write in XHTML, I expect it to *stay* XHTML not be translated into HTML > 4.0.
To me, it's an important feature that I can author in a reliable, parsable format like XHTML and get browser-friendly HTML 4.0 on the output. Besides, ultimately *all* template engines are about changing whatever the input looks like into whatever the output is supposed to be. Kid takes advantage of the fact that XML has well-defined syntax rules. > And if I specify XHTML in the config file, I expect it to look the way > I wrote it, complete with closing script tags instead of autoclosed script > tags (<script src="..."></script> instead of <script src="..."/>). Those are both legal XHTML. If you're really trying to do XHTML, it makes *no difference* which form you get. The trouble is that you're probably trying to use it in a real-life browser that doesn't actually understand XHTML. Which is why Kid translates to HTML 4.0. > I *really* hate anything that changes my code, because chances are I know > what I'm doing. And if I don't, I won't learn unless it breaks. > > I won't use Kid until it quits screwing with my code. Personally, I think Kid works fine in these instances. It provides serializers that understand real world browser (HTML 4.0) and what we'd really like when the support arrives (XHTML), and they both work from the same, unambiguous source format. Kevin
