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 22:15:00 GMT
Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>> 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":
>
>
> Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.
>
> The W3C Validator says:
>
> "Syntax of link type valid for<link>:
>      A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
> <link>  in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on<link>  on
> the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
> register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."
>
> It links to this Microformats wiki page:
>
> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>
> It says there:
>
> " HTML5 link type extensions
>
> The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
> requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
> HTML5 spec. "
>
> And in that table "publisher" is defined.

Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.

>> 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.
>>
>
> The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
> or HTML5.  Right now we don't declare anything specific.  So the

The page is already declared, as "XHTML 1.0 Strict", see the first line 
in the source file:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

But it seems to be deleted when it's staged and published, it's just the 
following:

<!DOCTYPE html>

> Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules.  If we want to be
> validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
> doctype.

Or investigate and fix whats going wrong in staging and publishing. ;-)

> But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
> markups.  I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
> HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
> page.  Maybe we should just remove it?

Deleting because we cannot fix it? Hm.

Marcus


Mime
View raw message