Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?]
> Lee Tambiah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-10-02 15:02: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Quim Gil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Sigurd Gartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?] > > Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:42:05 +0200 > > > > > > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 23:40 +0200, Sigurd Gartmann wrote: > > > > > We should probably take the safest and shortest road to our goal > > > and decide to go for 1.0 strict. > > > > +1 > > -- > > Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://pinguino.tv > > > > I second that too ;-) > > Lee http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/WebPolicies is now updated (deadline later this week): * format policies changed from xhtml1.1 to xhtml1.0 strict * i18n policies: added browser language settings Sigurd -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?]
> - Original Message - > From: "Quim Gil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Sigurd Gartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?] > Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:42:05 +0200 > > > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 23:40 +0200, Sigurd Gartmann wrote: > > > We should probably take the safest and shortest road to our goal > > and decide to go for 1.0 strict. > > +1 > -- > Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://pinguino.tv > << signature.asc >> > > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list I second that too ;-) Lee Regards L. Tambiah GNU/Linux Enthusiast /** * "Having the source code * means that we are not * held hostage by anyone's * support department." * --R. Nelson. **/ -- __ Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox. Powered by Outblaze -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?]
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 23:40 +0200, Sigurd Gartmann wrote: > We should probably take the safest and shortest road to our goal > and decide to go for 1.0 strict. +1 -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://pinguino.tv signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?]
Joachim Noreiko wrote: [...] > Can we get an idea of what proportion of visitors to > wgo use IE, perhaps from server logs? > It might be fair to suppose that most of our audience > already use a free browser even if they are on > windows, but then this would exclude people who might > happen to want to access the site from work, a > library, a web cafe, etc. > > http://www.gnome.org/stats/usage_200609.html Looks like MSIE 6 on Windows XP was the most popular browser last month. -Thomas -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?]
> Joachim Noreiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-09-30 12:59: > > Looking at the wikipedia article on XHTML, the only > advantage of 1.1 I can see is: > This version also allows for ruby markup support, > needed for East-Asian languages (especially CJK). > > Is this an important advantage? (By the way: an extra > use case for the website: "Is gnome available in > language x?" I can't currently find this from the > site.) > Are there any other advantages? > > Can we get an idea of what proportion of visitors to > wgo use IE, perhaps from server logs? > It might be fair to suppose that most of our audience > already use a free browser even if they are on > windows, but then this would exclude people who might > happen to want to access the site from work, a > library, a web cafe, etc. I don't think we affort to block IE users. However there is another solution to this, according to this MSDN IE blog [1]: "(...) and it is generally easy to set up most servers to conditionally serve content as “text/html” when the “application/xml+xhtml” MIME type is not supported." Should we be forward compatible or backward compatible in this case; by stepping back to XHTML 1.0 strict for every visitor or letting the XHTML 1.1 (and newer) compliant browsers get newer versions. We should probably take the safest and shortest road to our goal and decide to go for 1.0 strict. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx Sigurd -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?]
--- Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is stated in that document that all pages should > conform to XHTML 1.1. I think this is a bad idea > unless you want to keep out Internet Explorer users > since XHTML 1.1 requires the web server to send the > MIME type application/xhtml+xml instead of the usual > text/html. Internet Explorer only offers its user to > download the file in that case. Looking at the wikipedia article on XHTML, the only advantage of 1.1 I can see is: This version also allows for ruby markup support, needed for East-Asian languages (especially CJK). Is this an important advantage? (By the way: an extra use case for the website: "Is gnome available in language x?" I can't currently find this from the site.) Are there any other advantages? Can we get an idea of what proportion of visitors to wgo use IE, perhaps from server logs? It might be fair to suppose that most of our audience already use a free browser even if they are on windows, but then this would exclude people who might happen to want to access the site from work, a library, a web cafe, etc. ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
[Fwd: XHTML 1.1 or 1.0?]
I sent this initially to gnome.web-list since the topic is quite technical. However, since most of the GnomeWeb newcomers are here perhaps someone has got a good an opinion/answer... --- Begin Message --- http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/WebPolicies sets XHTML 1.1 as a wgo policy. In the comments there is a recommendation to use 1.0 instead. Any ideas? The comment: It is stated in that document that all pages should conform to XHTML 1.1. I think this is a bad idea unless you want to keep out Internet Explorer users since XHTML 1.1 requires the web server to send the MIME type application/xhtml+xml instead of the usual text/html. Internet Explorer only offers its user to download the file in that case. Also there are some usability problems with XHTML 1.1 like the lang attribute being removed in favor of xml:lang though right now this attribute seems only to be supported by Firefox. XHTML 1.0 Strict matches XHTML 1.1 pretty closely and does not face these problems - it does allow the document to be sent as text/html. -- ?ChristianJuner ___ gnome-web-list mailing list gnome-web-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list --- End Message --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
