Re: Suggestions For The Website
Jutta Wrage wrote:
>> 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.
>
Here is the source of information, that i previously mentioned :
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/
Here is why i am sure its valid xhtml:
( from the previously mentioned page )
> 4. Differences with HTML 4
>
> This section is informative.
>
> Due to the fact that XHTML is an XML application, certain practices that were perfectly legal in SGML-based HTML 4 [HTML4] must be changed.
>
> (...)
>
> 4.2. Element and attribute names must be in lower case
>
> XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute names. This difference is necessary because XML is case-sensitive e.g. <li> and <LI> are different tags.
>
> 4.3. For non-empty elements, end tags are required
>
> In SGML-based HTML 4 certain elements were permitted to omit the end tag; with the elements that followed implying closure. XML does not allow end tags to be omitted. All elements other than those declared in the DTD as EMPTY must have an end tag. Elements that are declared in the DTD as EMPTY can have an end tag or can use empty element shorthand (see Empty Elements).
>
> CORRECT: terminated elements
> <p>here is a paragraph.</p><p>here is another paragraph.</p>
> INCORRECT: unterminated elements
> <p>here is a paragraph.<p>here is another paragraph.
>
> (...)
>
> 4.6. Empty Elements
>
> Empty elements must either have an end tag or the start tag must end with />. For instance, <br/> or <hr></hr>. See HTML Compatibility Guidelines for information on ways to ensure this is backward compatible with HTML 4 user agents.
>
> CORRECT: terminated empty elements
> <br/><hr/>
>
> INCORRECT: unterminated empty elements
> <br><hr>
>
> (...)
>
> 4.10. The elements with 'id' and 'name' attributes
>
> HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map. HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. Both of these attributes are designed to be used as fragment identifiers.
>
> In XML, fragment identifiers are of type ID, and there can only be a single attribute of type ID per element. Therefore, in XHTML 1.0 the id attribute is defined to be of type ID. In order to ensure that XHTML 1.0 documents are well-structured XML documents, XHTML 1.0 documents MUST use the id attribute when defining fragment identifiers on the elements listed above. See the HTML Compatibility Guidelines for information on ensuring such anchors are backward compatible when serving XHTML documents as media type text/html.
>
> Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML.
Jutta also wrote :
> 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.
>
These empty tags <br /> ,<hr /> or <input /> are compatible with html4 as it is written in the previous source :
> C. HTML Compatibility Guidelines
>
> (...)
>
> C.2. Empty Elements
>
> Include a space before the trailing / and > of empty elements, e.g. <br />, <hr /> and <img src="karen.jpg" alt="Karen" />. Also, use the minimized tag syntax for empty elements, e.g. <br />, as the alternative syntax <br></br> allowed by XML gives uncertain results in many existing user agents.
>
> C.3. Element Minimization and Empty Element Content
> Given an empty instance of an element whose content model is not EMPTY (for example, an empty title or paragraph) do not use the minimized form (e.g. use <p> </p> and not <p />).
>
> (...)
>
> C.7. The lang and xml:lang Attributes
> Use both the lang and xml:lang attributes when specifying the language of an element. The value of the xml:lang attribute takes precedence.
that is why i am sure it is xhtml compatible; however the changes i talk about concern only the beginning of each document, that is repeated in every page ( automatically generated from one source )
Jutta wrote :
> 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.
Ok, no problem :-)
Regards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a
Reply to: