hi, first, the current homepage is written by IroNiQ and Alex, so i'm just telling my opinion :)
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:13:14PM +1300, Isaac Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1: Strict vs. Transitional doctype > > Current: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 > Transitional//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";> > > Proposed: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";> > > This is the most important point of all - a strict document type is > the foundation for quality markup and forces the separation of > presentation from content. agree > 2: XHTML vs. HTML and media types. > > Current: What looks like valid XHTML 1 is actually being served as > invalid HTML due to an incorrect media type. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /opt/bin/furl frugalware.org > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:05:38 GMT > Server: Apache > X-Powered-By: PHP/5.1.5 > Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=b0c8eac2eac22f09490951cc32fc5801; path=/ > Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT > Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0 > Pragma: no-cache > Connection: close > Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 > > Proposed: HTML4 served as text/html. > > http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml > "If you use XHTML, you should deliver it with the application/xhtml+xml > MIME type. If you do not do so, you should use HTML4 instead of XHTML." > > http://www.elementary-group-standards.com/html/why-xhtml.html > "- XHTML 1.0 is not forward compatible; XHTML 2.0 will not be > backwards compatible. > - Serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml does't work in IE. > - HTML 5 purports backwards compatibility." > > Although there are other more subtle reasons from this alone I would > conclude that, although I agree XHTML would still "work", HTML4 would > be the best choice. disagree. parsing html is very problematic, while xhtml is xml, i really think that an xhtml->html transition would be bad. what would be the valid content-type? text/xhtml? you are right about we should fix that > 3: Accessibility / WAI > Current: arguably the absolute minimum for WAI priority one. > Proposed: ? yes, as this was not an aspect while the current design of the homepage (i mean architectural design) was created. i would we very happy if we could improve it > This email is already long enough so I shall leave it at that. At the > very least this should get some conversation on the topic going ;) sure, thanks for all your effort :) udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org _______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
