W3C recommendations
Almost the whole Debian website meets the HTML standards except some
online documentation which seems to be a problem of debiandoc2html
(#188117).
In a quick survey I found more packages which generate code which
doesn't pass the check on http://validator.w3.org:
gallery
latex2hmtl
netsaint
squid
squirrelmail
texi2html
twiki
usemod-wiki
viewcvs
or whose HTML documentation isn't valid according to the validator:
cvsbook
gnupg-doc
icewm-common
imagemagick
impress
mozilla-browser
mrtg
mysql-doc
netsaint
sambadoc
xfree86-common
or which consist in invalid HTML:
lg-base
lg-issue*
Do you consider the recommendations of the W3 Consortium as binding or
optional for the Debian project? Shall I file a bug report against these
packages (and probably others)?
--
bli
Reply to: