On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 12:03, Stuart Donaldson wrote: > Having a couple of examples in the documentation is good. > Or possibly having named alternates which could be invoked by a servlet > in its own writeDoctype() method could ba a way to go. > Perhaps having a configuration setting would be good.
I strongly dislike having a configuration option. Maybe that's because I'm anti-configuration, but I don't think a configuration option gives the right impression. If Roger had a problem, then leaving 0.8's behavior like 0.7's would have kept it from being a problem (I imagine). If people are getting wacky results because of the doctype, they still could get wacky results from not having a doctype (just a different set of problems). Page could use some documentation, but I think it should be very easy to track down the doctype if that's a problem (though do browsers show the doctype with view source?). I would support proving in a docstring or comment a variety of reasonable alternatives -- probably HTML 3.0, HTML 4.0/strict, and XHTML 1.0 (strict and transitional). That seems entirely sufficient to me. What doctype was causing the problem? Obviously a strict doctype would be inappropriate, but were there problems with 4.0 transitional? -- Ian Bicking Colorstudy Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.colorstudy.com PGP: gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x9B9E28B7 4869 N Talman Ave, Chicago, IL 60625 / (773) 275-7241 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Webware-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
