Adding standard layout.html.twig for the TwigBundle recipe

[weaverryan]

Q	A
License	MIT

I think it makes sense to start with a base.html.twig in the templates directory.

This is an exact copy of the one from the SE... except that the favicon.ico link tag is gone (since we don't give the user this file).

Btw, would there be any issue with making this just base.twig? Is it time & is there a downside to dropping the .html part (other than breaking from tradition)?

[Pierstoval]

Even though Twig is used to generate HTML most of the time, I'm not sure removing the template format from the name is a good idea.

Twig errors templates follow this:
.

I don't see the value of removing it, unless writing some few characters is a big problem for DX.

[jvasseur]

Twig is using the extension of the file to choose what needs escaping. It defaults to html if there is no known extension but it's still a good practice to keep the extension.

[weaverryan]

Cool. Let's keep the .html.twig extension, and hopefully get some 👍 to merge this guy as is :)

Selfishly, I have a Flex workshop on Friday... and this would help me remove a manual step 😇

[fabpot]

base or layout?

[weaverryan]

Yea, let's use layout.html.twig - layout is the standard word for this. I've also deleted the .gitignore in templates/, since that directory is no longer empty.

This is ready for 👍 !

[chalasr]

No strong opinion myself, but this concern has been raised in symfony/symfony-standard#1034 (comment) and it seems that some folks did not agree with layout.

[javiereguiluz]

I'd prefer base.html.twig because this template just provides a base skeleton to show HTML contents. layout.html.twig would be better for example if we defined some main and sidebar blocks too.

[weaverryan]

Hmm.. indeed - seems there were several 👍 to stay with base.html.twig. Since switching from base.html.twig to layout.html.twig is not a clear win, let's stay with base.html.twig, which has the benefit of not being a change (so nothing new to teach, no docs / blog posts to update, etc)

I've changed back to base.html.twig. Ready for votes once again!

[javiereguiluz]

Can we please change this line to:

<meta charset="UTF-8">

Notes:

• I've validated the current code using https://validator.w3.org/#validate_by_input and putting /> in <meta> is valid.
• However, the HTML5 spec never includes it: https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/document-metadata.html#the-meta-element
• MDN doesn't include it either: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/meta

So, even if it could be valid for BC purposes, it looks like <meta ... /> should be <meta ...> (same for other empty elements).

[jvasseur]

The / is valid and mentioned in the spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#start-tags

If the element is one of the void elements, or if the element is a foreign element, then there may be a single "/" (U+002F) character.

So both versions are totally valid but the / is just an optional character that hold no meaning.

[javiereguiluz]

@jvasseur yes, it's valid. But the "cool kids" (W3C, MDN) no longer use it. Symfony Flex and recipes are like a new and refreshing Symfony, so I thought we should go for the cool new way of writing those empty elements 😎

[jvasseur]

Yes, I'm for removing it to.

I just wanted to point to the part of the spec that was mentioning the fact that it's optional and doesn't hold any meaning.

[Pierstoval]

It holds a meaning: <meta> is HTML whereas <meta /> is XML. That's the slight difference between the two.
Before, we used to write <meta /> when writing xHTML 1.1, and <META> when writing HTML 4.
HTML 5 allows both syntaxes, but as said, "cool kids" write cool code 😎

[weaverryan]

Done! Slash removed.

Can I get some up votes please? 😇 😇 I have a Flex workshop in the morning - having this file in the recipe removes an extra step. So, I don't want to rush things... but if this is ready... let's vote it in!

[weaverryan]

you guys are the best ;)