There isn't any particular reason functionally to go to one vs the other but I think we still generally prefer to get to plain .html if possible. The reasoning is that it's more common and understood by engineers and tooling. It also doesn't have XML-specific additions like CDATA in script tags.
That said, after talking through this again with Brendan we realized it may not end up being worth the effort for existing test files. If we were able to apply some of the incremental changes from step 5 to test .xhtml files that may be good enough. If the cost was low to include step 3 (like, if we had a tool that mostly automated away the process) then I’d prefer to do it. But it could be pragmatic to skip step 3 (at least for test documents). We’ll be working on some tooling anyway for step 5, so will spend a bit of time seeing how hard it looks to be to automate the html doc conversion. Brian > On May 14, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On 5/14/19 11:32 AM, Brian Grinstead wrote: >>> 3. For files where there are no (important) XUL elements in the >>> markup, rename .xul->.html. > > Brian, > > Could you expand on why this is preferable (when possible) to renaming them > to .xhtml? Are there benefits to .html over .xhtml for our purposes here? > Is this mostly around how we deal with our tests, as opposed to actual parts > of the UI? > > In general, the plan sounds great! > > -Boris > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
