From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 6 16:21:22 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFC637B401; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65CD43FB1; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 16:21:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mobile.pittgoth.com ([192.168.0.5]) by pittgoth.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h36NLGBG046807; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 19:21:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 07:19:50 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: "Bruce A. Mah" Message-Id: <20030407071950.61a3d035.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030406230307.GA33473@intruder.bmah.org> References: <20030405151719.GA75703@submonkey.net> <20030406230307.GA33473@intruder.bmah.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: ceri@FreeBSD.org cc: doc@FreeBSD.org cc: www@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: XHTML and the website X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 23:21:23 -0000 On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 16:03:07 -0700 "Bruce A. Mah" wrote: > If memory serves me right, Ceri Davies wrote: > > > In August last year, a commit was made to change the website to XHTML, and > > since then, all the documents built from SGML have been happily announcing > > in their DOCTYPE declaration that they are XHTML 1.0 Transitional. > > However, with the exception of the front page of the web site, they aren't; > > none of them validate. > > I might note that all of the documents in our documentation set also > claim to be XHTML. I wonder about them? If they're compliant, fixing > *them* might be kind of hard since a lot of the XHTML is generated > from the toolchain. Generated from tidy using the flags we have. Wonder what other options we can use here. :) /me backs away > > Like Murray, the cost/benefit ratio is a little hazy to me, but I'd > say as long as you're willing, and it doesn't break anything, go for > it. Well this was originally done for the purpose of working with a wide variety of www browsers. Thats the only reason I cared to do it in the first place. If its not helping, or there is no real change, then we can just back it out and look at another solution. -- Tom Rhodes