Hi,
Joe Schaefer schrieb:
________________________________
From: Regina Henschel<rb.hensc...@t-online.de>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Doctype of websites
Hi Joe,
Joe Schaefer schrieb:
Those de.openoffice.org pages should redirect
to www.openoffice.org/de pages, if not your
DNS resolver is busted.
I had indeed set de.openoffice.org to 192.9.163.104. Removing it makes
redirecting work.
That means the pages at de.openoffice.org had been the original ones,
but will be deleted in near future. They had been imported to
ooo-site.apache.org/de and here they have got a different doctype. Right?
Well sort of. If you look at the actual document on the site
you will probably find it contains an XHTML doctype even now.
The thing is that the CMS build system as Dave has designed it
will strip most of the header matter out of the file and replace
it with a generic one supplied by a template.
If that's not the problem
then you need to refresh your pages as they
are identical on the server.
As to why the doctype is different from the original
document, that's probably due to the way Dave worked
out the templates for the site. If we need to scrape
the doctype out of each individual page that will require
some perl coding work, some templating work,
and another sledgehammer style commit- ie not something
to be taken lightly.
Our pages had been XHTML with all the differences to HTML. And we tried
to produce valid pages (including W3C check button). It is not
impossible to change the pages and it can be done bit by bit while
reviewing the pages. But the aim should be clear.
Well I can't advise you how to proceed from here, only point out
that there is some impedance mismatch between how your site builds
work and what's actually in these documents. The choice seems
to be either standardize all the documents on a common doctype
or have the perl code pull the doctype out of the original document
if it exists and pass it along to the template as an argument.
You might even be better off just not supplying a doctype at all
and letting the browser figure it out. Up to you folks.
If we want valid pages, a common doctype is needed because the inserted
part has to be written in a way, that it fits this doctype. For example
you need for the feather-logo an <img .../> element in XHTML and in HTML
only <img ...>. So I think we need to agree on one doctype.
Is it possible to count, how many pages of all are actually having an
XHTML doctype? (I'm not familiar with command line.)
Kind regards
Regina
P.S. The feather img-Element is missing the alt-attribute.
