First of all, thanks loads for helping out with this!

On Jul 30, 2005, at 11:32 PM, Manuel Mall wrote:
Got the Forrest installation and site generation sorted out.

Just as an observation the site claims to be HTML 4.01 compliant but when you submit it to the W3C validator it fails validation. Basically we are making an unsubstantiated claim on compatibility here. The problems seems however to be mainly in Forrest and I have lodge an issues with them. However, I do wonder if we have to remove the compliance claim (the W3C HTML 4.01 logo) until we are really compliant? BTW, the Forrest site which uses the same skin
has the same problem.

We currently use Forrest 0.6. Forrest 0.7 was recently released, and it was on my personal ToDo list to convert to 0.7.

Changing the forrest skin is described here:

Another observation: FOP being a project under the XML family shouldn't we have an XHTML compliant site? I am guessing that this is a Forrest skin issue
as well?

That would be great. I believe that 0.7 brings Forrest closer to that XHTML reality. In order to make the site XHTML compliant, we may have to convert the site to either forrest 0.7 or 0.8-dev (not yet released).

Last observation: The compliance page (table columns) looks ugly under
Firefox. Its fine under IE 6, Opera, Konqueror. The problem is the right floating background image under external links which Firefox seems to ignore when calculating cell widths causing cells to overflow into their neighbours. Not sure what we can do about that its just a bit sad if our site looks bad
under the most popular open source browser.

True. The Compliance page is actually an 'ihtml' page. I used this, because Forrest had significant difficulties with the FOP Compliance page. I essentially created an HTML page, and then passed it through Forrest unmodified.

Back to the compliance page. I assume what is required is some indication of
1.0dev compliance vs 0.20.5 compliance. To achieve that we could:
a) Add extra columns, eg.
     Support (0.20.5)            |    Support (1.0dev)
Basic | Extended | Complete | Basic | Extended | Complete

That is what I originally proposed, and is what I believe makes the most sense. Doing it this way seems like it'd be the easiest to separate and compare the differences between 0.20.5 support & 1.0dev support.

b) Add extra columns like
     Basic          |      Extended     |     Complete
0.20.5| 1.0Dev | 0.20.5| 1.0Dev | 0.20.5| 1.0Dev |
c) Leave the column structure as is and record it in the column values, i.e.
instead of "Yes" we could have a list of version numbers eg. "0.20.5,
1.0dev". If its partial its indicated in brackets behind the version number.

Option c) is probably the easiest to manage as the table structure doesn't change as we add/remove releases from the table. b) is probably the easiest on the eye for a quick visual comparison but with each release added/removed
the whole table structure changes making it work intensive to maintain.

Feedback please

BTW, one other option is to convert this page to a Writer format. Forrest has a plugin which converts Writer documents to Forrest HTML/XHTML documents. It's very nifty, and works fairly well.


Thanks again, Manuel!


Web Maestro Clay
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

Reply via email to