Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 45820 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2003 20:02:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 45806 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2003 20:02:36 -0000 Received: from mail.gmx.net (213.165.64.20) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jun 2003 20:02:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 26770 invoked by uid 65534); 4 Jun 2003 20:02:40 -0000 Received: from a183069.studnetz.uni-leipzig.de (EHLO gmx.de) (139.18.183.69) by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 04 Jun 2003 22:02:40 +0200 Message-ID: <3EDE5085.1080306@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:03:17 +0200 From: Joerg Heinicke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-gb, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: TidySerializer References: <84F0A43A4248CE45B5C0E20F4C40779C34C3E1@naomi.webworks.nl> <200306032311.14251.torstenknodt@datas-world.de> <3EDD172C.1010900@gmx.de> <200306040136.43501.torstenknodt@datas-world.de> <3EDE43FA.8000507@gmx.de> <1054756317.21189.64.camel@yum.ot> In-Reply-To: <1054756317.21189.64.camel@yum.ot> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Bruno Dumon wrote: > On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 21:09, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > >>In conclusion: >>1. We need a patch for the HTMLSerializer for the namespace issue. >>2. A validation transformer seems to be really welcome. >>3. For human readability we do not need really a new serializer. What >>about the indent parameter on the serializer (like indent in >>)? At the moment you can set it to true, but this only adds >>line breaks AFAIK and does not indent the code. Maybe we simply need a >>patch too? > > > Back to the start... > > I'm convinced there is a place for a tidyserializer. Its purpose is not > to replace the htmlserializer, but it provides some features that can be > useful in some cases (mainly validation and beautifying). > FWIW, I'm +1 on adding the tidyserializer. -0.1 for the known reasons