incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Date Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:42:06 GMT
Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
>>>>>> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
>>>>>> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit
too
>>>>> high maybe... Is it wanted?
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
>>>>>
>>>>> And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
>>>>> markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
>>>>> to specific markup of the page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
>>>> validator
>>>> uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).
>>>>
>>>> Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However
>>>> I
>>>> wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links
>>
>
> Look at the detailed error message here:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f
>
> It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
> HTML specification.  They also look at the Microformats Wiki:
>
> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>
> "publisher" is listed there.
>
> Of course, that is what the error message says.  I have no idea if the
> Validator actually works that way ;-)

For me the Wiki says "do not use 'publisher', it's no longer valid HTML 
4.x style":

rel value | summary | defining specification | why dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
publisher | identifies a hypertext link to a publisher | HTML4dropped | 
unknown

However, it could come back in HTML 5 as it's already proposed:

Keyword | Effect on link | Effect on a, area | Brief description | Link 
to specification | Synonyms | Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
publisher | External Resource | Contextual External Resource | 
indicate[s] that the destination of that hyperlink is a metadata profile 
(e.g. a social / real name profile like Google+) for the current page or 
portion thereof. | rel-publisher | proposed

And IMHO the validator recognizes this already.

But when deleting it from our webpage I can imagine what would happen. 
;-), so we should leave all as it is for the moment.

Marcus

Mime
View raw message