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

Re: Suggestions For The Website

Hash: SHA1

Am 26.06.2006 um 12:58 schrieb kailander:

Is not valid HTML
I am sure its valid xhtml, and since you want to smoothly change to xhtml, and follow all the recommendations, whats the problem?

Can you please point us to the source for that information? "I am sure" is not enough. The XHTML definition is mostly covered by the HTML 4 rec. THis means that differences are liste in xthml1 rec and forms are not listed there as ther is not difference between both, if you do not include xml.

The pages are deliverd as text/html and have HTML in page head. That means, the _must_ be _valid_ HTML 4.01.

And about xhtml validation using validator.w3.org, please read the note there. You have to use an xml validator to validate xhtml.

The debian pages have currently

* Upper case tags on many pages
* missing end tags, where that is not allowed when moving xhtml

They are nearly all valid and display fine in browsers. If there really is something wrong in displaying we will change that if we can reproduce it and there is a solution. Having all or nearly all pages out of more than 22,000 is really a hard job, but we got it. And we won't like to change that.

So please tell me any reason why we should use something, that make the pages invalid? I have spend hundreds of hours to make them all valid last year. And all the others helped, to get the breakthrough moving from transitional to strict with CSS.



- --

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)


Reply to: