incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Doctype of websites
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:37:59 GMT
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 12:22 AM, Regina Henschel wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Joe Schaefer schrieb:
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Regina Henschel<>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:31 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Doctype of websites
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>> Joe Schaefer schrieb:
>>>>> Those pages should redirect
>>>>> to pages, if not your
>>>>> DNS resolver is busted.
>>>> I had indeed set to Removing it makes
>>>> redirecting work.
>>>> That means the pages at had been the original ones,
>>>> but will be deleted in near future. They had been imported to
>>>> and here they have got a different doctype. Right?
>>> Well sort of. If you look at the actual document on the site
>>> you will probably find it contains an XHTML doctype even now.
>>> The thing is that the CMS build system as Dave has designed it
>>> will strip most of the header matter out of the file and replace
>>> it with a generic one supplied by a template.
>>>>    If that's not the problem
>>>>> then you need to refresh your pages as they
>>>>> are identical on the server.
>>>>> As to why the doctype is different from the original
>>>>> document, that's probably due to the way Dave worked
>>>>> out the templates for the site.  If we need to scrape
>>>>> the doctype out of each individual page that will require
>>>>> some perl coding work, some templating work,
>>>>> and another sledgehammer style commit- ie not something
>>>>> to be taken lightly.
>>>> Our pages had been XHTML with all the differences to HTML. And we tried
>>>> to produce valid pages (including W3C check button). It is not
>>>> impossible to change the pages and it can be done bit by bit while
>>>> reviewing the pages. But the aim should be clear.
>>> Well I can't advise you how to proceed from here, only point out
>>> that there is some impedance mismatch between how your site builds
>>> work and what's actually in these documents.  The choice seems
>>> to be either standardize all the documents on a common doctype
>>> or have the perl code pull the doctype out of the original document
>>> if it exists and pass it along to the template as an argument.
>>> You might even be better off just not supplying a doctype at all
>>> and letting the browser figure it out.  Up to you folks.
>> If we want valid pages, a common doctype is needed because the inserted part has
to be written in a way, that it fits this doctype. For example you need for the feather-logo
an <img .../> element in XHTML and in HTML only <img ...>. So I think we need
to agree on one doctype.
>> Is it possible to count, how many pages of all are actually having an XHTML doctype?
(I'm not familiar with command line.)
>> Kind regards
>> Regina
>> P.S. The feather img-Element is missing the alt-attribute.
> I have been looking into this. In general the skeleton is the non-compliant part and
is what should be changed. However there are many of the NLC sites that are very much HTML.
> One more sledgehammer will happen ... but planning needs to be careful.

What if we went subdomain by subdomain and ran HTML Tidy on the
content to coerce it to a single doctype. Would that butcher things?


> Regards,
> Dave

View raw message