[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: W3C recommendations



On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 07:44:35PM -0500, Thomas Bliesener arranged a set of bits into the following:
> 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
Those are real bugs. How bad the result is defines the severity. So long
as a web browser in debian renders is OK it's not RC.
> 
> 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
wishlist
> 
> or which consist in invalid HTML:
> 
> lg-base
> lg-issue*
If it just doesn't include a doctype then it's probably older then HTML
4 and we shouldn't be concirned with it.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Attachment: pgpy8glztiTSf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: