Modernised phpinfo HTML somewhat #156
Conversation
* bug40459: News for bug#40459 fix bug #40459 - make all stream funcs that create object call ctor
* PHP-5.4: News for bug#40459 fix bug #40459 - make all stream funcs that create object call ctor
- html5 doctype <!doctype html> - removed unnecessary <head>, <html> and <body> - replaced some box table with div - used CSS for some inline table styles - closer to validating
…into php_info_html5
|
doesn't it already be merged by @nikic? |
|
I'd have to look through the actual HTML before approving something like this, but are we for this in principle? Perhaps someone built tools on the phpinfo output? I hope not, but I figured I should ask. |
| php_info_print("<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC \"-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN\" \"DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd\">\n"); | ||
| php_info_print("<html xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml\">"); | ||
| php_info_print("<head>\n"); | ||
| php_info_print("<!doctype html>\n<meta charset=utf-8>"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- DOCTYPE is usually uppercase for bc, but html5 does not care either way.
- Missing <html lang="en"> ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I just use <!doctype> because it looks nicer imo. I don't think it matters.
Also I don't think lang=en matters. If you mean the html tag, that can be omitted and is perfectly valid html (and for simple header pages like this, cleaner imo)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should drop html tag. Maybe it's allowed by the standard, but many tools would assume it's there, why make their lives harder?
|
@andrerom Those commits didn't used to show up here, I think... was master reverted or something? |
| php_info_print_style(TSRMLS_C); | ||
| php_info_print("<title>phpinfo()</title>"); | ||
| php_info_print("<meta name=\"ROBOTS\" content=\"NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW,NOARCHIVE\" />"); | ||
| php_info_print("</head>\n"); | ||
| php_info_print("<body><div class=\"center\">\n"); | ||
| php_info_print("<div class=\"center\">\n"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why body tag is dropped?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For file size optimization and scannability purposes, consider omitting optional tags.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep. I do this with all my HTML, it's much simpler, and doesn't really do that much.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bojieli Neither reason is applicable here. What is applicable is writing tools that can easily read this information.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't really supposed to be machine-readable, that's the text format's job.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TazeTSchnitzel Maybe I'm the only one who thinks dropping the body tag is a terrible idea. I've voiced my opinion and that's all I can do. I do agree that the text-format is designed to be human readable, but that doesn't mean we should rape our HTML.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@morrisonlevi rape? It's perfectly valid in HTML5. We aren't dealing with XHTML, here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be clear: I am all for updating the output, but I see absolutely no reason to approve this pull request. HTML5 give absolutely no benefit over what we already have. HTML5 is not even finalized.
My previous comment was a little harsh. I meant it that way because I feel strongly about this, but I would like to say I do not intend for it to be argumentative. I merely want to express my opinion without it being misunderstood.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This pull request does more than use HTML5. It uses tables less, removes some inline styling, etc, But you're right in that it adds almost nothing, so I'll close it.
|
Honestly, any changes OUGHT to be XML serializable. Let's not be lazy just because HTML5 permits it. |
|
+1 on xhtml5 |
|
+2 |
No description provided.