Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
wrote:
Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
to specific markup of the page.
Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
validator
uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
irrelevant.
The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).
Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However
I
wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:
If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.
-Rob
http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
Marcus
I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links
Look at the detailed error message here:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f
It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
HTML specification. They also look at the Microformats Wiki:
http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
"publisher" is listed there.
Of course, that is what the error message says. I have no idea if the
Validator actually works that way ;-)
For me the Wiki says "do not use 'publisher', it's no longer valid HTML
4.x style":
rel value | summary | defining specification | why dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
publisher | identifies a hypertext link to a publisher | HTML4dropped |
unknown
However, it could come back in HTML 5 as it's already proposed:
Keyword | Effect on link | Effect on a, area | Brief description | Link
to specification | Synonyms | Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
publisher | External Resource | Contextual External Resource |
indicate[s] that the destination of that hyperlink is a metadata profile
(e.g. a social / real name profile like Google+) for the current page or
portion thereof. | rel-publisher | proposed
And IMHO the validator recognizes this already.
But when deleting it from our webpage I can imagine what would happen.
;-), so we should leave all as it is for the moment.
Marcus
