Skip to content

Adding standard layout.html.twig for the TwigBundle recipe #161

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Aug 31, 2017
Merged

Adding standard layout.html.twig for the TwigBundle recipe #161

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
63fec05
Adding standard base.html.twig for the TwigBundle recipe
weaverryan Aug 28, 2017
3815f4c
remove favicon link tag
weaverryan Aug 28, 2017
b6b76f8
Renaming to layout.html.twig
weaverryan Aug 31, 2017
d75a860
removing - as we now have a template inside templates
weaverryan Aug 31, 2017
640624a
naming back to base.html.twig
weaverryan Aug 31, 2017
92f8409
Removing unnecessary closing /
weaverryan Aug 31, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Empty file removed symfony/twig-bundle/3.3/templates/.gitignore
View file
Open in desktop
Empty file.
12 changes: 12 additions & 0 deletions symfony/twig-bundle/3.3/templates/base.html.twig
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8" />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we please change this line to:

<meta charset="UTF-8">

Notes:

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

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@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 😎

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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 😎

<title>{% block title %}Welcome!{% endblock %}</title>
{% block stylesheets %}{% endblock %}
</head>
<body>
{% block body %}{% endblock %}
{% block javascripts %}{% endblock %}
</body>
</html>