Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:30:53 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> Cc: doc@freebsd.org, "Simon L. B. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org>, www@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: doc/www cleanup Message-ID: <CAF6rxg=Fdv-8gCbh452Lk5ZUu3nuMP6X6mSg793tHp=t%2BUxmkg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <501BD9E3.305@FreeBSD.org> References: <501BAFBD.3010008@FreeBSD.org> <CAC8HS2E2ekMKJgY04qPrQGbEe_tPJ%2BHrf5_ToERptf0yawYoQA@mail.gmail.com> <501BD9E3.305@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3 August 2012 07:02, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> 4, Stricter XHML: I don't propose going directly to XHTML Strict 1.0 but >> >> Eh, why would you go to XHTML at all considering it's basically >> deprecated in favor for HTML5 (yes, there is no standard for that, but >> still..). There is a standard. The WHATWG maintains it here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ > I can think of two reasons: > (1) It is the trivial and straight way to go to XHTML for now. HTML5 would > be a bigger jump that should be tested more carefully. The current plan is > to do the migration in several phases for better QA. For example, for now we > are only going to DocBook 4.2/XML, which can still be used with Jade and > DocBook DSSSL. Going to full XML-based standards and newer DocBook version > will be a next step that requires more testing. It is harder to move to XHTML than it is to move to HTML5. > (2) Are you sure HTML5 is supported in all browsers that our users use? For > example, I sometimes use links and I imagine other people may do so, as > well. We should investigate this more. I am reasonably sure browsers support HTML5 due to the fact that HTML5 largely documents *how things already work*. -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxg=Fdv-8gCbh452Lk5ZUu3nuMP6X6mSg793tHp=t%2BUxmkg>