On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2012, at 12:22 AM, Regina Henschel wrote: > >> 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. > > I have been looking into this. In general the skeleton is the non-compliant > part and is what should be changed. However there are many of the NLC sites > that are very much HTML. > > One more sledgehammer will happen ... but planning needs to be careful. >
What if we went subdomain by subdomain and ran HTML Tidy on the content to coerce it to a single doctype. Would that butcher things? -Rob > Regards, > Dave > >
