On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@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.m...@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.m...@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.m...@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 one. Net result is the error goes away if we just change the attribute value to all lowercase. > >>> 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, are hand authored now. Nothing is enforcing any single doctype, or even well-formedness. It is human-authored "tag soup". > >> 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. -Rob > Marcus >
