Summary
doctype egg is missing sxml conversion rule for generic HTML doctype
Metadata
- Id: b990d7d50c8395377fce8225f44ef2a56b8b578f
- Trac id: 592
- Type: defect
- Reporter: syn
- Owner:
- Cc:
- Status: closed
- Component: unknown
- Estimated difficulty:
- Resolution: fixed
- Priority: minor
- Milestone:
- Version: 4.7.x
- Changetime: 2012-10-12 07:14:08 UTC
- Created: 2011-06-07 23:30:49 UTC
- Keywords:
Attachments
- b990d7d50c8395377fce8225f44ef2a56b8b578f/attachments/update-doctype-sxml-rules-example.diff
- b990d7d50c8395377fce8225f44ef2a56b8b578f/attachments/doctype-prefix-on-sxml-rules-and-generic-html-rule.diff
Description
The doctype egg exports a set of sxml conversion rules (doctype-rules). These are missing a conversion rule for the generic HTML doctype that's exported as doctype-html.
Changes and comments
[2011-06-07 23:45:37 UTC] zbigniew wrote:
The rules were added by sjamaan prior to the introduction of doctype-html, and prior to the deprecation of the non-prefixed doctypes. What do you propose the new rule be called? Plain html will conflict with the "html" tag. In my opinion the rules should be prefixed with doctype- with the old aliases retained but deprecated. However I am not currently using these rules (or this egg, in point of fact), so it's up to you.
[2011-10-06 09:57:16 UTC] felix removed milestone 4.8.0
[2012-05-15 17:05:10 UTC] alaric wrote:
May I suggest that the rules follow the lead of the module exports themselves, and add `doctype-*` names for all the existing rules and for `doctype-html`?
I will gladly provide a patch to that effect if you the "meh"s about it, zbigniew :-)
[2012-05-15 21:22:45 UTC] zbigniew wrote:
Sure, I would accept that patch.
FYI, I normally just use (lit "<!doctype html>") these days rather than bringing in a extra dependency. But if you want to use the doctype egg, it's a good solution.
[2012-10-12 02:37:53 UTC] evhan attached doctype-prefix-on-sxml-rules-and-generic-html-rule.diff (description=#f)
[2012-10-12 02:38:34 UTC] evhan attached update-doctype-sxml-rules-example.diff (description=#f)
[2012-10-12 02:40:56 UTC] evhan wrote:
I was momentarily confused by this recently as well; attached patch implements the change Alaric suggests above.
[2012-10-12 07:14:08 UTC] zbigniew wrote:
I did not apply your patch as-is because I wanted doctype- prefix rules added in tandem with the old rules, for proper back compat. However you gave me the impetus to finally implement this. Fixed in doctype 2.1, along with an old bug in the html-2.0 rule.