From owner-freebsd-www@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 3 17:07:41 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: www@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4640D106566B; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gabor@FreeBSD.org) Received: from server.mypc.hu (server.mypc.hu [87.229.73.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BAA8FC0C; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:07:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server.mypc.hu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.mypc.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC6214E7E1F; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:07:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at server.mypc.hu Received: from server.mypc.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by server.mypc.hu (server.mypc.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gTuQge_KwlA1; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:07:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.117] (catv-80-98-232-12.catv.broadband.hu [80.98.232.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.mypc.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12BBD14E7E07; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:07:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <501C0529.7070801@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 19:06:49 +0200 From: Gabor Kovesdan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120604 Thunderbird/14.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eitan Adler References: <501BAFBD.3010008@FreeBSD.org> <501BD9E3.305@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: doc@freebsd.org, "Simon L. B. Nielsen" , www@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: doc/www cleanup X-BeenThere: freebsd-www@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Project Webmasters List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:07:41 -0000 On 2012.08.03. 18:30, Eitan Adler wrote: >> 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. > Could you elaborate this more? One issue with HTML5 is that we still want offline validation (not just well-formedness check) and there's no official schema. We have to write one or find one that is already written by someone and is reliable enough. Secondly, HTML5 isn't used widely yet and it would be nice to really be able to evaluate its usage for our docs in spite of all of its "awesomeness". In general, please consider that we have a really ancient technology set in use at the moment and we cannot risk big jumps by suddenly replacing everything. We have to catch up now with the upgrades that haven't done for a long time. I'm not against using UTF-8 and HTML5 and thorough testing and QA are important factors. I think something like this is a realistic upgrade path: 1, DocBook 4.2/XML, DocBook DSSSL, OpenJade, XHTML 1.0 --> currently in progress 2, DocBook 4.5/XML, DocBook XSL, xsltproc, xmlroff, HTML5 --> need to evaluate xmlroff for PDF and HTML5 3, DocBook 5.0/XML, DocBook XSL, xsltproc, xmlroff, HTML5, UTF-8 --> need to evaluate UTF-8 support Gabor