incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Date Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:58:15 GMT


On 10/14/2012 03:52 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 10/15/2012 12:29 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No.  Look carefully.  There are two entries.  The one in the "dropped"
>> tabled is for an older meaning of "publisher".  But look again at the
>> first table.  "publisher" is still there and references the Google
>> definition.  So they dropped the old definition and added the a new
>
> yes, but it's just "proposed". That means it's not yet valid.
>
>> one.  Net result is the error goes away if we just change the
>> attribute value to all lowercase.
>
> As you can see with the staged version of the index page the error is
> still there. ;-)
>
>>>>> 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>
>>>
>>
>> The only thing that counts is what is published and that is determined
>> by the templating logic.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Good luck.  Remember, most of the website pages, aside from the wiki,
>
> I know, and patches are always welcome. ;-(
>
>> are hand authored now.  Nothing is enforcing any single doctype, or
>> even well-formedness.  It is human-authored "tag soup".
>
> Many files have already a doc type.
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Deleting because it is pointless to host a W3C badge for a 10 year old
>> web standard that we don't really use for the website.
>>
>> Heck, I'd be happy if we spell checked the website.  We can't agree on
>> U.S. versus UK English, or on which CSS to use, or what look and feel
>> to use for NL pages.  We have a lot of things to fix that users can
>> actually see before we worry about XHTML versus HTML.
>
> That's not wrong. So, feel free to delete it.
>
> I can only speak for myself when saying I'll try to avoid any
> warnings/errors when working on HTML files.
>
> You are right when thinking it's not easy to find the right way,
> therefore for me this thread is now at its end. All well.
>
> Marcus

The graphic is now gone...we will likely be making additional changes 
soonish...so we can further discuss if we want something like even in 
the footer, or not.

>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
  dealt with a cat."
                                -- Robert Heinlein

Mime
View raw message