On 11/26/12, Joe Dreimann <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2012, at 07:03, Peter Koželj <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 25 November 2012 20:07, Matevz Bradac <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've started working on #217 - "Make Bloodhound's layout responsive", >>> based on Joe's html mockup of the ticket page (#240). >>> I noticed that the HTML output contains a mix of HTML 5 along with >>> XHTML 1.0, even though the doctype is XHTML 1.0 strict. >>> As a consequence (some of) the pages don't validate (e.g. >>> >>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/240 >>> ), >>> and this may be the cause of browsers (mis)behaving and rendering >>> things differently. >>> >>> Is there any general consensus which doctype BH should use?
At least I didn't pay attention to this ... and afaicr I saw nothing like that in mockup either >>> Since >>> we're using Bootstrap I suppose it would be better to go along >>> with HTML 5, but I'm not sure how this affects the templating system. Should be OK , afaicr . Genshi is about XML >>> There's a Genshi extension which could be used >>> (http://code.google.com/p/genshihtml5), >>> does anyone have any experience with that? >>> What's the benefit for using this ? >>> >> The other thread "Inline editing of objects" (for the Ticket page) >> suggest >> fallback mechanism for javascript disabled browsers. >> Although this is not directly linked I would rather "advertise" BH as >> HTML5 >> UI experience than a no-javascript capable one. >> >> Is anybody aware of any browser that is actually incapable of displaying >> HTML5 page? >> >> Peter >> > > To my knowledge all relevant browsers (including IE6 etc) will display HTML > 5 pages (using quirks mode), more information here: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3911235/html-5-doctype-and-ie-6 > > In my opinion this is not an issue, we should be fine to use HTML 5. > AFAICS , HTML5 should be ok . It should be rendered in quirks mode by major browsers . I'm not sure what'd happen with small navigators like NetSurf but it claims to just support HTML 4. {{{ #!sh $ apt-cache show netsurf Package: netsurf Priority: extra Section: universe/web Installed-Size: 1248 [...] Version: 1.2-1build1 [...] Description: Small portable web browser with CSS and Unicode support NetSurf is a multi-platform lightweight web browser. Its aim is to provide comprehensive rendering of HTML 4 with CSS 2 in a small resource footprint while remaining fast. [...] }}} Once again , it is mandatory to design for disabled JS ... and that's beyond Netsurf ;) -- Regards, Olemis. Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
