Re:_HTML_Strict_and_XHTML

[Lavandowska <fl...@yahoo.com>]

--- Wouter__Huijnink <wo...@func.nl> wrote:
> But it depends on your document type whether the HTML is valid: if I
> specify that my document is XHTML, my option tag should be closed.
> However, if my document type is HTML Strict, W3C validation will FAIL
> when I close my option tag. So what I'd like, is the possibility to
> make the tag's behaviour dependent on the document type, or to use
> tags from different packages (for instance an xhtml subpackage).

Perhaps a mechanism for declaring which version of HTML to generate
(with a default), then using a different rendering version/system per
HTML spec?  This could be subpackages as you mention, or some other
"templating" mechanism.
 
> Besides, in an Object Oriented language, it should be easy to
> subclass available classes. So I really think it to be rather bad
> programming that important methods cannot be overridden and a lot
> depends on package scope helper classes.

Yes, I agree with you.  I think this is a good example though of
knowing when to make methods extensible and when not to.  "Standard
Practices" say to make your methods as restricted as possible (so as to
simplify the "API") and only open them as necessary.  This is part of
the API evolution.

Good suggestions.

Lance

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: taglibs-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: taglibs-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org