#4784: robot meta tag needs beautification
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: hakre | Owner: anonymous
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: 2.3 (trunk)
Component: Template | Version: 2.2.2
Severity: normal | Resolution:
Keywords: needs-patch |
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment (by hakre):
Replying to [comment:8 Nazgul]:
> Replying to [comment:6 Otto42]:
> > Double quotes are required in XHTML Strict, while Transitional allows
either single or double quotes.
> Could you point me to a place where that's specified?
>
> I've searched the specs, but as far as I can tell XML (and XHTML) allow
both ' and " to encapsulate attribute values. Also, my personal blog is
XHTML 1.0 Strict according to the W3 validator and it uses ' for some
attribute encapsulation.
>
It's not that hard to find out that Double Quotes are needed by specs:
[10] ` AttValue ::= '"' ([^<&"] | Reference)* '"'`
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-well-formed
XHTML family document types are XML based, and ultimately are designed
to work in conjunction with XML-based user agents.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#xhtml
As XML is the basis of all XHTML double quotes should be considered. Just
think of you have a useragent that is XML- and not SGML-based. Since this
behaviour is compatible down to SGML (which is the Basis of HTML and does
support both single and double quotes), there are no backward compability
Issues in using double quotes.
If someone argues that the W3C-Validator is telling something else (I read
that above) should read the docs of the validator that is clearly speaking
about it's limitations. That is one if it. The old Validator page made
this more clear. Additionally this is plain "best practice" in (X)HTML
writing.
Anyways, this is not only about the specs only. The really most biggest
part of the WP-Core-Code simply uses double-quotes for the xhtml-output so
I strongly argue to do it here as well.
For the Tab (\t) it was the same kind of argumentation for me: since all
the other stuff in head and the default theme have a tab in front I wanted
to see this inside here as well.
In general i think it is most important to have the same form if quoting
usage everywhere to create a nice output and sothat devs show they care
about the output. No nitty slitty witty "but oh-oh-oh it validates" -
discussions anylonger please.
Replying to [comment:8 Nazgul]:
> Personally I favor readable PHP sourcecode over consistent HTML. Both
are machine-readable formats which aren't meant to really be read by
humans anyway, but it's the PHP code I have to read and edit as a
developer.
So you mean the code in the diff is not as readable as it should? Could
you please reference the WP-Coding guidelines on this one? Since the code
is edited by many people a single personal opinion shouldn't make such a
bold statement herein. And I would doubt that: {{{ echo " <meta
name=\"robots" content=\"noindex,nofollow\" />\n"; }}} is more readable.
But I have no problem to adopt the guidelines here in my diffs.
For me this is connected to the questions wether to use single quoted
strings in favor of double quoted one in php. My practise (as of many
others) is to use mainly single quoted strings otherwise sometimes being
lazy, and right now I do not see why to change this with my wp-diffs. As
said, point me to the guilines if there are any and I take care about it.
Replying to [comment:4 Stevie212]:
> Also the <link rel='archives'> does this as well, this should be changed
also.
>
>
> <link rel='archives' title='August 2007' href='http://localhost/wp' />
>
> Should be:
>
> <link rel="archives" title="August 2007" href="http://localhost/wp" />
>
Added this to the list and updated the patch. motto-quote: "Gosh, it *was*
already tabbed!" ;) This time I even took the oportunity to beautify the
sourcecode as well.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.wordpress.org/ticket/4784#comment:11>
WordPress Trac <http://trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software