You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Erik Abele <we...@codefaktor.de> on 2002/07/07 20:52:45 UTC
[PATCH] XHTML Error-Docs
Hi!
Some weeks ago I posted the attached patch. It modifies the present error
doc templates (spacer.html, top.html, bottom.html) to be valid xhtml
documents.
To ensure their correctness, I validated all the resulting error documents
(the ssi-parsed output) at w3.org.
I also had to correct the <br>-tags in HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var
and an <a>-tag in contact.html.var (see attached patch).
regards,
erik
Re: Missing sentence in HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Erik Abele wrote:
> It seems that HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var is missing a
> sentence in the english part.
I agree. I fixed that and also made the improvement suggested by Rich.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Missing sentence in HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Erik Abele wrote:
> It seems that HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var is missing a sentence in
> the english part.
>
> In the first if-clause only the error message is echoed out; shouldn't we
> provide an introducing sentence like "The server encountered an internal
> error and was unable to complete your request." above the error message?
My understanding was that the REDIRECT_ERROR_NOTES replaced the need for
this.
> All the other translations have such a phrase.
So they do.
> The server encountered an internal error and was
> unable to complete your request. The server is either
> overloaded or there was an error in a CGI script.
Shouldn't that be "Either the server is overloaded, or there was ..." ?
--
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the sky on laughter-silvered wings
--High Flight (John Gillespie Magee)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Missing sentence in HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var
Posted by Erik Abele <we...@codefaktor.de>.
It seems that HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var is missing a sentence in
the english part.
In the first if-clause only the error message is echoed out; shouldn't we
provide an introducing sentence like "The server encountered an internal
error and was unable to complete your request." above the error message?
All the other translations have such a phrase.
see below for an example:
...
Content-language: en
Content-type: text/html
Body:----------en--
<!--#set var="TITLE" value="Server error!" -->
<!--#include virtual="include/top.html" -->
<!--#if expr="$REDIRECT_ERROR_NOTES" -->
-> (Missing: The server encountered an internal error and was
unable to complete your request.) <-
<!--#include virtual="include/spacer.html" -->
Error message:
<br /><!--#echo var="REDIRECT_ERROR_NOTES" -->
<!--#else -->
The server encountered an internal error and was
unable to complete your request. The server is either
overloaded or there was an error in a CGI script.
<!--#endif -->
<!--#include virtual="include/bottom.html" -->
----------en--
...
Any opinions on this?!?
-erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [PATCH] XHTML1.1 Error-Docs
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
[ follow-up to developer list posting ]
* Erik Abele wrote:
>> I removed the
>> meta-content-type header, which is just bad news in my opinion.
>
> I'm a little bit unsure about the meta-content-type header: the XHTML
> 1.0 specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/) recommends to use
> both methods to define the content-type on existing/older user agents.
>
> an extract of REC-xhtml1-20000126 follows:
[...]
> To specify a character encoding in the document, use both the encoding
> attribute specification on the xml declaration (e.g. <?xml
> version="1.0" encoding="EUC-JP"?>) and a meta http-equiv statement
> (e.g. <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content='text/html;
> charset="EUC-JP"' />). The value of the encoding attribute of the xml
> processing instruction takes precedence.
hmmm, I think the quoted paragraph only affects a decision between
<?xml encoding="..." ?> and <meta http-equiv="..." content=".." />.
Additionally - IIRC - there's nowhere any iso-8859-1 character,
therefore the character encoding declaration is more or less useless ;-)
(Character Entities are written in us-ascii...)
> Maybe we should put the meta-header in again ?
IMHO: -1
(not a binding vote, I know ;-)
nd
--
print "Just Another Perl Hacker";
# André Malo, <http://www.perlig.de/> #
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [PATCH] XHTML1.1 Error-Docs
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Erik Abele wrote:
> I'm a little bit unsure about the meta-content-type header: the XHTML 1.0
> specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/) recommends to use both methods
> to define the content-type on existing/older user agents.
Ech. Browsers will get the charset and encoding from the proper HTTP
headers set as part of the response. We don't need to futz with meta
stuff. I'm guessing those guidelines only apply for xhtml when it
is not transmitted via http.
> >
> > By the way, a repost on the docs list would have been just as effective.
> >
>
> whuups, thanks...I was unsure were to put this topic; sorry for that :-)
No need to apologize. You posted twice with no response. I just meant
to say that posting a third time would have been fine.
Joshua.
Re: [PATCH] XHTML1.1 Error-Docs
Posted by Erik Abele <we...@codefaktor.de>.
Hi Joshua.
> Thanks! I commited your patch with the sole change that I removed the
> meta-content-type header, which is just bad news in my opinion.
I'm a little bit unsure about the meta-content-type header: the XHTML 1.0
specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/) recommends to use both methods
to define the content-type on existing/older user agents.
an extract of REC-xhtml1-20000126 follows:
======= Snip ========
Appendix C. HTML Compatibility Guidelines
This appendix is informative.
This appendix summarizes design guidelines for authors who wish their XHTML
documents to render on existing HTML user agents
...
C.9 Character Encoding
To specify a character encoding in the document, use both the encoding
attribute specification on the xml declaration (e.g. <?xml version="1.0"
encoding="EUC-JP"?>) and a meta http-equiv statement (e.g. <meta
http-equiv="Content-type" content='text/html; charset="EUC-JP"' />). The
value of the encoding attribute of the xml processing instruction takes
precedence.
======= Snip ========
Maybe we should put the meta-header in again ?
>
> By the way, a repost on the docs list would have been just as effective.
>
whuups, thanks...I was unsure were to put this topic; sorry for that :-)
regards,
erik
Re: [PATCH] XHTML1.1 Error-Docs
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Erik Abele wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Some weeks ago I posted the attached patch on the docs-list. Last week I
> posted it a second time, but didn't receive any replies. Therefore I am
> posting it here on the dev-list
Thanks! I commited your patch with the sole change that I removed the
meta-content-type header, which is just bad news in my opinion.
By the way, a repost on the docs list would have been just as effective.
Joshua.
[PATCH] XHTML1.1 Error-Docs
Posted by Erik Abele <we...@codefaktor.de>.
Hi!
Some weeks ago I posted the attached patch on the docs-list. Last week I
posted it a second time, but didn't receive any replies. Therefore I am
posting it here on the dev-list...
The patch modifies the present error doc templates (spacer.html, top.html,
bottom.html) to be valid XHTML 1.1 documents.
To ensure their correctness, I validated all the resulting error documents
(the ssi-parsed output) at w3.org.
I also had to correct the <br>-tags in HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var
and an <a>-tag in contact.html.var (see patch).
cheers,
erik
> Von: Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>
> An: docs@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Valid XHTML Error-Docs
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 09:05:00PM +0200, Erik Abele wrote:
>> I would also prefer valid XHTML-Documents, but I don't want to convert all
>> the files if they won't be included.
>
> +1 especially if someone contributes them! -- justin