cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <>
Subject Re: CForms - strict DTD and xhtml
Date Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:25:06 GMT
On 01.07.2004 10:32, Colin Paul Adams wrote:

>> You are really nagging on this issue, aren't you? ;-)
> Drip. Drip. Drip.
> Look - a hollow's appeared in that stone! (no hole yet, though)


> I checked out all the samples - since everyone of them is using the
> Transitional DTD, that's not much of a test for your claim to
> adherence to the strict DTD. Inspecting the source code by hand
> suggests it might well be a valid claim.

Do you believe me that I can configure my serializer so that it outputs 
the strict document type declaration? ;-)
I used the w3c validator for the tests.

> There are one or two of the samples do not completely validate (ignoring
> the xmlns:fi issue), and the forms-gui one is nothing like (but I
> think you are already well aware of that).

Cocoon's part of the work were the stylesheets, not the templates - 
though it should also set a good example. The aggregate field template 
was a bit more complex and I was lazy then. For the Forms GUI sample it 
seems the FormsTransformer must be fixed. How I can fix the empty select 
element without breaking the double-listbox - I don't know.

> Have you looked at all the additional comments I made to bug #29854
> yesterday? I surmise that this xmlns:fi issue is probably the same
> bug (or at least, closely related to it - in any case it is produced
> by the FormsTransformer).

If you refer to the pure additional namespace declaration: no, it is 
much easier. The elements that have that namespace at the end were 
copied from the template into the output - and they are always copied 
with all their namespaces. This is a correct behaviour. To fix it you 
have to add a namespace clearing XSLT at the end that uses xsl:element 
instead of xsl:copy.

> Visual inspection also shows one other thing that would be a problem
> for xhtml validation, and that is method="POST" rather than
> method="post".

Good to know, I have not been aware of this. Maybe I should go one step 
further today to XHTML 1.0 strict ;-)


View raw message