Gervase Markham wrote:
>...
> Regarding Matthew's earlier comments, which I can't find, it would be
> _very_ _bad_ to use XHTML and serve it as text/html - without
> enforcing the well-formedness constraint on XHTML from the very start,
> you are throwing away the world's best chance to have a HTML-esque
> format which is zero-cruft, and can be understood by lightweight
> parsers which don't need to deal with broken code.
>...
I don't believe that for a moment. And the reason I don't believe it is
that XHTML 1.0 Transitional (which is what I propose we use) exists at
all. XHTML Transitional wouldn't exist, if XHTML hadn't been intended to
be served to clients which only understand text/html.
> > 6) We need to settle on filesystem layout and URI layouts. Some have
> > been suggested, I'm not aware of anything we should be working to.
> > It's make our minds up time.
>
> Again, this problem goes away if we use a content management system.
No, it doesn't. We need to minimize linkrot whether or not we use a
content management system. A content management system might make it
easy to keep links on our own site up to date, but it will do nothing to
update links to mozilla.org which reside on other people's Web sites and
bookmark lists.
> More important is the navigational layout, which is a separate thing
> which keeps getting conflated with the filesystem layout and even the
> URI layout.
To mazimize usability, the URI structure should match the navigational
structure as much as possible.
> > Oh, and apparently we must work well on Nav 4.x on Solaris. So Dawn
> > says.
>
> If it works on Nav 4.x on any platform, it should work on the others -
> right?
>...
No. 4.x versions for different platforms have different crasher bugs.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
