Very lucid and intelligent discussion, Paul. As an eager fan of XML, I second the idea to push XHTML as the next-generation Zope DTML syntax. If this is the goal, the "tag" syntax currently used by Zope can be preserved, with some modifications. I've jotted down a few examples of how such a modified syntax might look, at least as I see it. At least this is one possible angle. (Note: Best read in a monospaced font.) XML syntax:: Equivalent legacy syntax:: <zope:tree expr="PARENTS[-1]"> <!--#tree expr="PARENTS[-1]"--> ... stuff ... ... stuff ... </zope:tree> <!--#/tree--> <zope:var expr="id()"/> <!--#var expr="id()"--> <zope:var obj="standard_html_header"/> <!--#var standard_html_header--> <zope:var>index_html</zope:var> <!--#var index_html--> For non-XMLists, notice the use of the slash ("/") character to close up empty elements. Also note how all parameters to a tag are wrapped in true attributes. Something like <var "foo"> simply isn't permitted. Here's a sample of specifying a default namespace, so you that you use Zope tags without qualifying them with the "zope" namespace. Notice how this -- if it is to be done cleanly -- requires that you prefix HTML tags with the "html" namespace. I have not decided whether this is entirely necessary, since Zope will preprocess the DTML and in this case, would have to remote the "html:" prefix anyway. <in xmlns="http://www.zope.org/schema/1.0" expr="objectValues('DTML Document')"> <var>title_or_id</var><html:br> </in> Unfortunately, the idea that you can write something like <var standard_html_header> is rescinded by XML, unless ASP-like "blocks" of code as Jules Allen proposes can be included. Given the current syntax I can't conceive of a way that this can be done elegantly -- the minute we step into "ASP-like"-ness, we're in the realm of "defining a new language". While Jules' example syntax would certainly work on a technical level, the question is, as much as we abhor the current SSI syntax, do we really want to become more like ASP? -- Alexander Staubo http://www.mop.no/~alex/ "`This must be Thursday,' said Arthur to himself, sinking low over his beer, `I never could get the hang of Thursdays.'" --Douglas Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_

-----Original Message----- From: zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of Paul Everitt Sent: 11. juni 1999 20:09 To: 'Jules Allen'; zope@zope.org Subject: RE: [Zope] <% ... %> ?

Jules wrote:

...

Has it been suggested that the SSI-type syntax of Zope isn't the most readable thing in the world? Is this even the right list to suggest this heresy or should I strap on the asbestos underwear and wander over to zopedev?

I'll comment first on the multiline statement. Let me reinforce the idea that The Zope Way is to separate presentation and logic. While we should have some kind of object that better deals with logic, I don't think there will be much sympathy for creating something that looks like ASP or PHP.

Let me limit the conversation back to your subject line: <% vs. <!--#

The latter was originally chosen to be like the dominant syntax at the time (SSI) and to be "legal HTML". I think the latter has proven to be total bunk, as almost no DTML Documents are valid (they get nearly everything from the fragments of standard header and footer).

What are some reasons to consider changing from the SSI syntax?

o It's hideous, cumbersome, and everybody hates it

o No tools support editing it

o It isn't conformant with the direction of HTML

o Any others?

Let's evaluate the situation in light of these.

It's Hideous ------------

Yes.

Tool Support ------------

The SSI syntax just happens to enjoy nearly zero support out there. Things like Netscape Composer, Dreamweaver, and Emacs HTML Mode just can't be convinced to handle it nicely.

Does anyone view this issue as important?

Future of HTML --------------

What role does SSI play in the future of HTML? Zero. Of course, neither do any of the alternative syntaxes mentioned previously.

Thus, I'd like to list some requirements for a future syntax:

1) Within reach of "content managers". I won't budge on this one. I think XSL will have a role in Zope, but *NOT* as a DTML replacement.

2) Reasonably close to DTML. The current DTML accomplishes some level of functionality. While some small amount might not be permitted in some change, or might be permitted in a clumsy way, there should be a reasonable match.

3) Coherent with the HTML future. We have a choice: invent a syntax and, one by one, support every web authoring tool. Alternatively, we can stick to standards and wait for them to support it.

Proposal --------

_If_ these were the requirements, then I think a reasonable proposal is XHTML:

http://wdvl.com/Authoring/Languages/XML/XHTML/

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#future

XHTML reworks HTML as an XML-compliant language. Most imporantly, you can extend it with new namespaces (like Zope instructions) without breaking the DTD, as is the case with ColdFusion et al.

Why?

1) Alledgely it is the future of HTML.

2) Becoming well-formed means the authors can be given hints before saving changes, and Zope can do smarter things with structured data on the server.

Why Not?

1) A number of differences with HTML might drive people off.

2) It isn't here yet.

3) Zope syntax might not be mappable into XML.

At any rate, I'd love for someone in the Zope community to march off and take a look at this, then make a proposal for how things should be changed. As always, patches are accepted. :^)

--Paul

Paul Everitt Digital Creations paul@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ----------------------------------------- The Open Source Zope application server http://www.zope.org/ -----------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope

(For developer-specific issues, use the companion list, zope-dev@zope.org - http://www.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )