Miguel de Icaza
miguel at ximian.com
Sat Jul 5 12:19:19 EDT 2003
> > That makes sense. I had an idea earlier this evening of possibly specifying
> > a flag in the constructor which allows the XhtmlTextWriter to produce 'pure'
> > or 'dirty' XHTML. By pure I of course mean the XHTML which you described
> > and is described in the link you pointed us to - text/xml. And dirty XHTML
> > would be the XHTML described in the XHTML Recommendation - Appendix C.
> This is silly. There is no such thing as 'dirty' XHTML. Either a
> document is or is not XHTML. There is no "middle ground".
> Here is what I would see as the best solution:
It is a noble goal to push for Xhtml, but you have not addressed the
concerns from the url I posted, and I am not going to start supporting
two different code paths for the sake of Xhtml beauty.
There are plenty of other things to do before we ship Mono 1.0, and
supporting this feature is definitely not a priority Ben.
More information about the Mono-devel-list