Add HTML5 support to CGI
The attached patch adds support for HTML 5, providing
the doctype <!DOCTYPE html> and the tag helpers for the
new HTML elements (article, section, ...).
Changes were made in
Tests were added to
((Notice:)) the new HTML5 `header' element has ((not)) been added,
because it collides with the already defined CGI#header
method that creates the HTTP header block.
To avoid unreflected addition of this element, a test has
been included to make sure that CGI#header won't break.
Detailed list of changes in `html.rb' (in comparison to HTML 4 strict):
- doctype changed
- new elements added
- removed elements: tt, big, acronym
- void elements: area, base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, input, keygen, link, meta, param, source, track, wbr
- new elements with optional end tag: optgroup, rt, rp
See the Editor's Draft of the HTML5 specification (15 June 2012):
#2 Updated by Marcus Stollsteimer over 3 years ago
- File 6637.pdf added
Slide added (attached 6637.pdf).
CGI: provides methods for generating HTML elements
HTML5 already widely used, support highly desirable
<header>collides with existing
(which returns the HTTP header)
CGI#header, possibly to
at least, include support for nearly all new HTML5 elements
(easy to achieve, no compatibility issues, patch supplied)
if possible, achieve full support
(this could not be done in a minor release)
#6 Updated by Marcus Stollsteimer about 3 years ago
have you come to any conclusions?
In case you consider support of all new HTML5 tags,
including , I would be willing to provide
a new set of patches:
first patch to rename
(breaking downward compatibility)
second patch to provide full HTML5 support at once
#8 Updated by Takeyuki FUJIOKA about 3 years ago
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
- Status changed from Assigned to Closed
#9 Updated by Marcus Stollsteimer about 3 years ago
Did you consider the issue with the tag?
At the moment it can not be created with the tag writer
like the other tags. I proposed a possible solution
in my previous posts.
Do you have any thoughts about this point?
BTW. I would have appreciated being mentioned in
the log message, like it's done by other committers
("patch by ..."), considerung the effort I put into this.