incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Doctype of websites
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:33:52 GMT

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.


View raw message