Re: not valid {x}html (was Re: [gentoo-dev] www.gentoo.org and konqueror)

[Colin Morey]

On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 17:13, Daniel Mettler wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> hi colin,
>
Hiyas, 
Forgive me if i'm not fully understanding what you've said below,..

> On Monday 12 August 2002 11:43, Colin Morey wrote:
> > 	They have to be built from valid xml or they won't build, I
> > assume you mean xsl,
>
> i wanted to point out that, if all the content is available as
> valid xml (as i suppose), it's pretty astonishing that the
> final html pages were not valid html from the beginning
> already. imnsho, using xslt it's almost harder to transform valid
> xml pages into invalid {x}html pages than into valid ones ;)
All content is built from vaild xml, (ie every <start> has a
corresponding </start>)

However I'm not sure what you mean by it being astonishing that it's not
valid html.. if you mean that the html generated by the xsl/xml
interaction is not valid, then that's a fair point, (and incidently I
believe it is a fault of the xsl not the xml. Which I'm working to
address).


>
> now it should be a matter of adjusting the respective xslt file
> to make all the resulting {x}html pages valid according to the
> w3c specifications.
>
Indeed, and it's a project that is currently underway. :)

> > (regardless, it's the end html that being
> > validated/looked at here).
>
> yep. nevertheless it's wise to choose a powerful, rather generic
> language such as xml/xsl as base language (to easily
> batch-transform content into other formats).
hmm, that is exactly what we've done.. all of the docuements are in xml
and then get "translated" into html when the site is built.

> > 	<rant level="mini" severity="mild">I offer up this, would you
> > prefer a page that validated 100% or one that actually worked
> > in most browsers..
>
> sorry, this is no question, really:
I agree, I'm of the "100%" camp, but i acknowledge that many people use
browsers that aren't standards compilant.


>
> i) there is no contradiction between the two. in fact w3c
> standards ensure that pages work with most browsers (or rather:
> that each browser has equal chances to work nicely with standard
> compliant pages. it's the same in the end.)
You know as well as I do that html does not render the same in all
browsers, this is both sad and unfortunate.  I'm fully in favour of 100%
validating pages.

> ii) when writing standard compliant pages you are not obliged to
> use the latest-and-greatest tag specified in a standard (though
> you may, if you want).
However if you use the tags, then be prepared for many browsers to get
confused, 
>
> iii) if a browser does not parse/render pages well which are
> compliant to a nice, widely accepted, clearly specified, open
> standard, it's the browser's problem (i.e. a bug).
>
hear hear,

> iv) adhering to open and free standards is the alpha and omega in
> i.t.
>
> nb. i do not consider konqueror to be a bad browser. it's my
> default browser and i like it for its high performance and nice
> features. usually it works fine with standard compliant pages,
> but konqi/khtml still have some weaknesses/bugs indeed. i am
> sure the devs are working hard to fix the bugs and improve
> konqi/khtml.
>
I don't use konqueror, mainly because i don't use kde, I tried it once,
then left it in favour of enlightenment/gnome. So I really appreciate
reports of brokeness in that browser, when i have time i will be setting
up enviroments that i can use to test cross-browser compatibility,
(netscape 3 anyone?)

Colin Morey.

Aka Peitolm@g.o