From: Niklas Frykholm <r2d2@...>
Date: 2001-09-06T00:10:51+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:20926] Re: Minor cgi.rb question

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:07:45PM +0900, Tobias Reif wrote:
[Tobias Reif]
> Absolutely. As I suggested, options for the current version of HTML 
> should be provided:
> XHTML1 strict + CSS1, (works well in IE5 and NN6)
> XHTML1 transitional + CSS1, (for table stuff in non-NN6ers)
> XHTML1 strict + CSS2, (~NN6+)
> 
> and possibly other options for HTML4 loose, HTML3, ...

I don't suppose you mean that you should be able to do something like:

	font('brownish', {:color => '0xcccc00'})

and then it would turn into a "<FONT COLOR=...>" tag if the user had selected
to generate HTML3 and "<span style=...>" if she had selected to generate CSS?
If you do, I think it is too ambitious... it would essentially mean that we
would have to define our own markup language.

I think the library should only provide "raw" tag-generating functions and
not care about whether the document is well-formed or not according to some
DTD. HTML Validation is useful, but it should be in a module of its own.
(So should CSS generation also, I think. And JavaScript generation --- if
anyone wants that.)

// Niklas