Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of olemis@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2BA32F18-E010-433A-8E9F-359192ABA8F8@wandisco.com>
References: 
 <CA+DjKZc4rh9Fd6Th=kvVQMD3qpnZ+cyjh=K-EHwjo0zcv_P3TQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJSKAsjgAQMwMNFwO2CNyTR71mLpk0rVmR44OdVcfCa8aBztWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2BA32F18-E010-433A-8E9F-359192ABA8F8@wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:17:18 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAGMZAuNEGKSObF8PC4j9jo9ztEyOYQHa8qx3sYV+SwhTKUWs5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Genshi XHTML + HTML 5
From: Olemis Lang <olemis@gmail.com>
To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/26/12, Joe Dreimann <joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2012, at 07:03, Peter Ko=C5=BEelj <peter@digiverse.si> wrote:
>> On 25 November 2012 20:07, Matevz Bradac <matevzb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've started working on #217 - "Make Bloodhound's layout responsive",
>>> based on Joe's html mockup of the ticket page (#240).
>>> I noticed that the HTML output contains a mix of HTML 5 along with
>>> XHTML 1.0, even though the doctype is XHTML 1.0 strict.
>>> As a consequence (some of) the pages don't validate (e.g.
>>>
>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=3Dhttps://issues.apache.org/bloodhoun=
d/ticket/240
>>> ),
>>> and this may be the cause of browsers (mis)behaving and rendering
>>> things differently.
>>>
>>> Is there any general consensus which doctype BH should use?

At least I didn't pay attention to this ... and afaicr I saw nothing
like that in mockup either

>>> Since
>>> we're using Bootstrap I suppose it would be better to go along
>>> with HTML 5, but I'm not sure how this affects the templating system.

Should be OK , afaicr . Genshi is about XML

>>> There's a Genshi extension which could be used
>>> (http://code.google.com/p/genshihtml5),
>>> does anyone have any experience with that?
>>>

What's the benefit for using this ?

>>>
>> The other thread "Inline editing of objects" (for the Ticket page)
>> suggest
>> fallback mechanism for javascript disabled browsers.
>> Although this is not directly linked I would rather "advertise" BH as
>> HTML5
>> UI experience than a no-javascript capable one.
>>
>> Is anybody aware of any browser that is actually incapable of displaying
>> HTML5 page?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> To my knowledge all relevant browsers (including IE6 etc) will display HT=
ML
> 5 pages (using quirks mode), more information here:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3911235/html-5-doctype-and-ie-6
>
> In my opinion this is not an issue, we should be fine to use HTML 5.
>

AFAICS , HTML5 should be ok . It should be rendered in quirks mode by
major browsers .

I'm not sure what'd happen with small navigators like NetSurf but it
claims to just support HTML 4.

{{{
#!sh

$ apt-cache show netsurf
Package: netsurf
Priority: extra
Section: universe/web
Installed-Size: 1248
[...]
Version: 1.2-1build1
[...]
Description: Small portable web browser with CSS and Unicode support
 NetSurf is a multi-platform lightweight web browser. Its aim is to provide
 comprehensive rendering of HTML 4 with CSS 2 in a small resource footprint
 while remaining fast.
[...]

}}}

Once again , it is mandatory to design for disabled JS ... and that's
beyond Netsurf ;)


--=20
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article: