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:
pgpvEqFMQ0qnx.pgp
Description: PGP signature