On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:51:04PM +0200, Mikolaj Machowski wrote: > Hello, > > I am author of (x)html completion scripts and related (php, css, > javascript). I'd like to ask what you think it should like. > > At the beginning I was pushing for one default: XHTML 1.0 Strict. Bram > didn't like it and now there are two: fot &ft='html' HTML 4.01 > Transitional and for &ft=='xhtml' XHTML 1.0 Strict (user can still > choose another version with b:html_omni_flavor variable - this > improvement may be not yet in snapshot/cvs/svn).
Defaults are always tricky but I think what you currently have is the best compromise. > Bram still doesn't like > it. According for him completion should be more flexible and not limited > to some standard. For me it defies whole idea of omni-completion > - completion suggestions should be precise. I agree. I can't see any point in, for example, my XHTML 1.0 Strict document offering Transitional elements in the completion list. In fact, the completion list is something I'd like to use to remind me of exactly what is and isn't available in Strict. > Problem with (X)HTML is > there are many standards but creation of messy compilation from > them has no sense. Vim is superb program and should support writing of > good code - according to standards. +1 <snip> > Add functions for detection of DOCTYPE to ftplugins for xhtml and html. This would certainly be the ideal solution. > Still there is usability problem for creation of new files. Maybe some > general completion for insertion of DOCTYPE and setting appropriately > completion. Again, this sound great. I think you've thought this out very well. Perhaps Bram could elaborate on his objections? Regards, Doug
