On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:19 AM, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi all, > > Christian Lohmaier schrieb: >> Hi Dave, *, >> >> probably one of my last messages on the list since I'll be gone with >> the forwarder.. (so assume I will not read replies tomorrow/whenever >> the switch is flipped) >> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Dave Fisher<dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Dave Fisher<dave2w...@comcast.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 12:22 AM, Regina Henschel wrote: >>> [...] >>>>>>> Well sort of. If you look at the actual document on the site >>>>>>> you will probably find it contains an XHTML doctype even now. >> >> Old OOo pages were xhtml transitional, that is correct. And at least >> the www.openoffice.org and de.openoffice.org pages were fully valid >> (according to the w3c validator) >> >> CollabNet Enterprise Edition (that was used before Kenai, and after >> SourceCast (the old name of older version of CollabNet Enterprise >> Edition that was used even earlier) did as well ignore the doctype and >> other meta-tags, but merged title and meta tags into the overall >> templating system. >> So all pages were delivered as xhtml - of course that didn't make them >> valid, but that means that they worked for the users and editors with >> that doctype. >> >>> [...] >>> I think that ssi.mdtext should add a line like: >>> >>> doctype:<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" >>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> >> >> Please don't turn back the wheel of time. If you want to make a >> unification, then I suggest you either user xhtml transitional, or >> make the step to html5 right away as default. > > One of XHTML or HTML5 would be fine for me too. XHTML would mean less work, > but HTML5 likely assures of a good future.
I am happy to report that the site doctype is now html5 and that various minor issues with the site template were fixed. I implemented the doctype using an SSI. If necessary any first level folder in the site can theoretically have a special type. Doing so might cause trouble with the site template, but ... Thanks, Dave > > Kind regards > Regina >
