You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/09 23:05:14 UTC
[PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Please have a look when you get a moment at the test area for home pages in:
http://www.openoffice.org/test/
I have moved what were basically permanent items on our social networking
areas and blog to the
"I want to stay in touch..." area. Also, I edited the styling giving ~66%
to the main menu items and ~33% to the "campaign" items to deal with
annoyances on both browser and mobile devices.
I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
as a short ps. I did discover, after some investigation into the actual
html for our generated web site, that we do indeed already have ssi enabled
for ALL ".html" files for our entire site. So, if that helps anyone in any
way. I am already investigating and testing this to deal with the ongoing
"news" area.
Set up file extensions for your includes with some other than ".html" -- I
used ".ssi" -- and away you go!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
dealt with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 10/14/2012 03:52 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 10/15/2012 12:29 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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":
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.
>>>>
>>>> The W3C Validator says:
>>>>
>>>> "Syntax of link type valid for<link>:
>>>> A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
>>>> <link> in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed
>>>> on<link> on
>>>> the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
>>>> register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."
>>>>
>>>> It links to this Microformats wiki page:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It says there:
>>>>
>>>> " HTML5 link type extensions
>>>>
>>>> The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
>>>> requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
>>>> HTML5 spec. "
>>>>
>>>> And in that table "publisher" is defined.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.
>>>
>>
>> No. Look carefully. There are two entries. The one in the "dropped"
>> tabled is for an older meaning of "publisher". But look again at the
>> first table. "publisher" is still there and references the Google
>> definition. So they dropped the old definition and added the a new
>
> yes, but it's just "proposed". That means it's not yet valid.
>
>> one. Net result is the error goes away if we just change the
>> attribute value to all lowercase.
>
> As you can see with the staged version of the index page the error is
> still there. ;-)
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
>>>> or HTML5. Right now we don't declare anything specific. So the
>>>
>>>
>>> The page is already declared, as "XHTML 1.0 Strict", see the first
>>> line in
>>> the source file:
>>>
>>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>>>
>>> But it seems to be deleted when it's staged and published, it's just the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>>>
>>
>> The only thing that counts is what is published and that is determined
>> by the templating logic.
>>
>>>
>>>> Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules. If we want to be
>>>> validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
>>>> doctype.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or investigate and fix whats going wrong in staging and publishing. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Good luck. Remember, most of the website pages, aside from the wiki,
>
> I know, and patches are always welcome. ;-(
>
>> are hand authored now. Nothing is enforcing any single doctype, or
>> even well-formedness. It is human-authored "tag soup".
>
> Many files have already a doc type.
>
>>>> But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
>>>> markups. I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
>>>> HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
>>>> page. Maybe we should just remove it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Deleting because we cannot fix it? Hm.
>>>
>>
>> Deleting because it is pointless to host a W3C badge for a 10 year old
>> web standard that we don't really use for the website.
>>
>> Heck, I'd be happy if we spell checked the website. We can't agree on
>> U.S. versus UK English, or on which CSS to use, or what look and feel
>> to use for NL pages. We have a lot of things to fix that users can
>> actually see before we worry about XHTML versus HTML.
>
> That's not wrong. So, feel free to delete it.
>
> I can only speak for myself when saying I'll try to avoid any
> warnings/errors when working on HTML files.
>
> You are right when thinking it's not easy to find the right way,
> therefore for me this thread is now at its end. All well.
>
> Marcus
The graphic is now gone...we will likely be making additional changes
soonish...so we can further discuss if we want something like even in
the footer, or not.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
dealt with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10/15/2012 12:29 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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":
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.
>>>
>>> The W3C Validator says:
>>>
>>> "Syntax of link type valid for<link>:
>>> A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
>>> <link> in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on<link> on
>>> the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
>>> register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."
>>>
>>> It links to this Microformats wiki page:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>>>
>>> It says there:
>>>
>>> " HTML5 link type extensions
>>>
>>> The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
>>> requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
>>> HTML5 spec. "
>>>
>>> And in that table "publisher" is defined.
>>
>>
>> Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.
>>
>
> No. Look carefully. There are two entries. The one in the "dropped"
> tabled is for an older meaning of "publisher". But look again at the
> first table. "publisher" is still there and references the Google
> definition. So they dropped the old definition and added the a new
yes, but it's just "proposed". That means it's not yet valid.
> one. Net result is the error goes away if we just change the
> attribute value to all lowercase.
As you can see with the staged version of the index page the error is
still there. ;-)
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
>>> or HTML5. Right now we don't declare anything specific. So the
>>
>>
>> The page is already declared, as "XHTML 1.0 Strict", see the first line in
>> the source file:
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>>
>> But it seems to be deleted when it's staged and published, it's just the
>> following:
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>>
>
> The only thing that counts is what is published and that is determined
> by the templating logic.
>
>>
>>> Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules. If we want to be
>>> validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
>>> doctype.
>>
>>
>> Or investigate and fix whats going wrong in staging and publishing. ;-)
>>
>
> Good luck. Remember, most of the website pages, aside from the wiki,
I know, and patches are always welcome. ;-(
> are hand authored now. Nothing is enforcing any single doctype, or
> even well-formedness. It is human-authored "tag soup".
Many files have already a doc type.
>>> But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
>>> markups. I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
>>> HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
>>> page. Maybe we should just remove it?
>>
>>
>> Deleting because we cannot fix it? Hm.
>>
>
> Deleting because it is pointless to host a W3C badge for a 10 year old
> web standard that we don't really use for the website.
>
> Heck, I'd be happy if we spell checked the website. We can't agree on
> U.S. versus UK English, or on which CSS to use, or what look and feel
> to use for NL pages. We have a lot of things to fix that users can
> actually see before we worry about XHTML versus HTML.
That's not wrong. So, feel free to delete it.
I can only speak for myself when saying I'll try to avoid any
warnings/errors when working on HTML files.
You are right when thinking it's not easy to find the right way,
therefore for me this thread is now at its end. All well.
Marcus
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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":
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.
>>
>> The W3C Validator says:
>>
>> "Syntax of link type valid for<link>:
>> A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
>> <link> in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on<link> on
>> the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
>> register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."
>>
>> It links to this Microformats wiki page:
>>
>>
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>>
>> It says there:
>>
>> " HTML5 link type extensions
>>
>> The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
>> requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
>> HTML5 spec. "
>>
>> And in that table "publisher" is defined.
>
>
> Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.
>
No. Look carefully. There are two entries. The one in the "dropped"
tabled is for an older meaning of "publisher". But look again at the
first table. "publisher" is still there and references the Google
definition. So they dropped the old definition and added the a new
one. Net result is the error goes away if we just change the
attribute value to all lowercase.
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
>> or HTML5. Right now we don't declare anything specific. So the
>
>
> The page is already declared, as "XHTML 1.0 Strict", see the first line in
> the source file:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>
> But it seems to be deleted when it's staged and published, it's just the
> following:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html>
>
The only thing that counts is what is published and that is determined
by the templating logic.
>
>> Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules. If we want to be
>> validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
>> doctype.
>
>
> Or investigate and fix whats going wrong in staging and publishing. ;-)
>
Good luck. Remember, most of the website pages, aside from the wiki,
are hand authored now. Nothing is enforcing any single doctype, or
even well-formedness. It is human-authored "tag soup".
>
>> But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
>> markups. I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
>> HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
>> page. Maybe we should just remove it?
>
>
> Deleting because we cannot fix it? Hm.
>
Deleting because it is pointless to host a W3C badge for a 10 year old
web standard that we don't really use for the website.
Heck, I'd be happy if we spell checked the website. We can't agree on
U.S. versus UK English, or on which CSS to use, or what look and feel
to use for NL pages. We have a lot of things to fix that users can
actually see before we worry about XHTML versus HTML.
-Rob
> Marcus
>
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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":
>
>
> Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.
>
> The W3C Validator says:
>
> "Syntax of link type valid for<link>:
> A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
> <link> in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on<link> on
> the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
> register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."
>
> It links to this Microformats wiki page:
>
> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>
> It says there:
>
> " HTML5 link type extensions
>
> The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
> requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
> HTML5 spec. "
>
> And in that table "publisher" is defined.
Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.
>> 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.
>>
>
> The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
> or HTML5. Right now we don't declare anything specific. So the
The page is already declared, as "XHTML 1.0 Strict", see the first line
in the source file:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
But it seems to be deleted when it's staged and published, it's just the
following:
<!DOCTYPE html>
> Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules. If we want to be
> validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
> doctype.
Or investigate and fix whats going wrong in staging and publishing. ;-)
> But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
> markups. I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
> HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
> page. Maybe we should just remove it?
Deleting because we cannot fix it? Hm.
Marcus
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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":
Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.
The W3C Validator says:
"Syntax of link type valid for <link>:
A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
<link> in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on <link> on
the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."
It links to this Microformats wiki page:
http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
It says there:
" HTML5 link type extensions
The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
HTML5 spec. "
And in that table "publisher" is defined.
> 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.
>
The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
or HTML5. Right now we don't declare anything specific. So the
Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules. If we want to be
validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
doctype.
But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
markups. I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
page. Maybe we should just remove it?
-Rob
> Marcus
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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 ;-)
-Rob
> Marcus
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@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
Marcus
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@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
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
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:
http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
Marcus
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10/14/2012 05:58 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 10/10/2012 05:29 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org>**
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/****test/<http://www.openoffice.org/**test/>
>>>>> <http://www.openoffice.**org/test/<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<http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png>
>>>> <**http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png<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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> hmmm...thanks for the feedback. Yes, the positioning can be changed and I
>>> will look at the fixes it tags.
>>>
>>
>> I've changed the positioning of the W3C validator logo to show it left
>> aligned. IMHO it's looking better than stuck to the rightmost. I hope you
>> don't mind.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>
> Well I kind of like it off to the right better, but this isn't a big issue
> for me.
>
> As for the validator element itself...I would be in favor of removing it
> entirely. It's only on the home page so what's the point unless we want to
> add it to the footer area, so it would display on ALL pages. Ah! I just
Good point. Moving it into the footer would be great.
Marcus
> saw Rob's response! I'm all for removing this little graphic entirely as
> well.
>
> Yes, I too saw the "publisher" error, but decided to just leave it alone.
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 10/10/2012 05:29 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org>**
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/****test/ <http://www.openoffice.org/**test/>
>>>> <http://www.openoffice.**org/test/ <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<http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png>
>>> <**http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png<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.
>>>
>>>
>> hmmm...thanks for the feedback. Yes, the positioning can be changed and I
>> will look at the fixes it tags.
>>
>
> I've changed the positioning of the W3C validator logo to show it left
> aligned. IMHO it's looking better than stuck to the rightmost. I hope you
> don't mind.
>
> Marcus
>
Well I kind of like it off to the right better, but this isn't a big issue
for me.
As for the validator element itself...I would be in favor of removing it
entirely. It's only on the home page so what's the point unless we want to
add it to the footer area, so it would display on ALL pages. Ah! I just
saw Rob's response! I'm all for removing this little graphic entirely as
well.
Yes, I too saw the "publisher" error, but decided to just leave it alone.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
dealt with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10/10/2012 05:29 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/**test/<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<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.
>>
>
> hmmm...thanks for the feedback. Yes, the positioning can be changed and I
> will look at the fixes it tags.
I've changed the positioning of the W3C validator logo to show it left
aligned. IMHO it's looking better than stuck to the rightmost. I hope
you don't mind.
Marcus
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/**test/ <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<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.
>
hmmm...thanks for the feedback. Yes, the positioning can be changed and I
will look at the fixes it tags.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
dealt with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
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.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > Please have a look when you get a moment at the test area for home pages
> in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/test/
> >
> > I have moved what were basically permanent items on our social networking
> > areas and blog to the
> > "I want to stay in touch..." area. Also, I edited the styling giving ~66%
> > to the main menu items and ~33% to the "campaign" items to deal with
> > annoyances on both browser and mobile devices.
> >
> > I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
> > sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
> >
> > as a short ps. I did discover, after some investigation into the actual
> > html for our generated web site, that we do indeed already have ssi
> enabled
> > for ALL ".html" files for our entire site.
>
> I told you that was the case more than once, but I guess you had to figure
> it out yourself.
>
Well you did I have no doubt. I probably misunderstood what you were trying
to say, and yes, did have to figure it out myself. :/ It was obvious when
I saw what actually got generated from the build. Duh...I guess I should
have looked at this a lot sooner.
>
> > So, if that helps anyone in any
> > way. I am already investigating and testing this to deal with the ongoing
> > "news" area.
> >
> > Set up file extensions for your includes with some other than ".html" --
> I
> > used ".ssi" -- and away you go!
>
> Or, modify the behavior of ooo-site/trunk/lib/path.pm to do a
> transformation of xml or mdtext into a ssi.
>
Well I originally just wanted to use a simple ".ssi" for the News business
to get away from editing and archiving entries as we do now. This was
before Rob's suggestions about xml feeds etc. At any rate, I'm sure
there's a lot that could be done. Right now, I'm having issues getting
includes to work with my local setup...so after I get that gong, I'll do
more testing, and make more changes to our header portions.
> There is more to learn about it. You can ask about it directly or find my
> emails in the archives.
>
OK...I'll do that. Maybe at some point, we could work on providing
additional information in our instructions as well -- maybe "Advanced
Website Techniques" or something.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
> > dealt with a cat."
> > -- Robert Heinlein
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
dealt with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Please have a look when you get a moment at the test area for home pages in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/test/
>
> I have moved what were basically permanent items on our social networking
> areas and blog to the
> "I want to stay in touch..." area. Also, I edited the styling giving ~66%
> to the main menu items and ~33% to the "campaign" items to deal with
> annoyances on both browser and mobile devices.
>
> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
>
> as a short ps. I did discover, after some investigation into the actual
> html for our generated web site, that we do indeed already have ssi enabled
> for ALL ".html" files for our entire site.
I told you that was the case more than once, but I guess you had to figure it out yourself.
> So, if that helps anyone in any
> way. I am already investigating and testing this to deal with the ongoing
> "news" area.
>
> Set up file extensions for your includes with some other than ".html" -- I
> used ".ssi" -- and away you go!
Or, modify the behavior of ooo-site/trunk/lib/path.pm to do a transformation of xml or mdtext into a ssi.
There is more to learn about it. You can ask about it directly or find my emails in the archives.
Regards,
Dave
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
> dealt with a cat."
> -- Robert Heinlein
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/10/9 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> Please have a look when you get a moment at the test area for home pages
> in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/test/
>
> I have moved what were basically permanent items on our social networking
> areas and blog to the
> "I want to stay in touch..." area. Also, I edited the styling giving ~66%
> to the main menu items and ~33% to the "campaign" items to deal with
> annoyances on both browser and mobile devices.
>
> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
>
I like it! +1 from here.
Regards
Ricardo
>
> as a short ps. I did discover, after some investigation into the actual
> html for our generated web site, that we do indeed already have ssi enabled
> for ALL ".html" files for our entire site. So, if that helps anyone in any
> way. I am already investigating and testing this to deal with the ongoing
> "news" area.
>
> Set up file extensions for your includes with some other than ".html" -- I
> used ".ssi" -- and away you go!
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
> dealt with a cat."
> -- Robert Heinlein
>
Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please have a look when you get a moment at the test area for home pages in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/test/
>
> I have moved what were basically permanent items on our social networking
> areas and blog to the
> "I want to stay in touch..." area. Also, I edited the styling giving ~66%
> to the main menu items and ~33% to the "campaign" items to deal with
> annoyances on both browser and mobile devices.
>
Yes, it is an improvement, certainly. Thanks.
Btw, in case it is useful for deciding how to optimize the page, here
is the distribution of screen resolution for visitors to the website
in the past month:
1. 1366x768 1,366,268 19.34%
2. 1280x800 889,840 12.60%
3. 1024x768 736,505 10.43%
4. 1920x1080 646,770 9.16%
5. 1280x1024 621,559 8.80%
6. 1440x900 529,038 7.49%
7. 1600x900 357,577 5.06%
8. 1680x1050 345,564 4.89%
9. (not set) 239,877 3.40%
10. 1024x600 207,235 2.93%
Regards,
-Rob
> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
>
> as a short ps. I did discover, after some investigation into the actual
> html for our generated web site, that we do indeed already have ssi enabled
> for ALL ".html" files for our entire site. So, if that helps anyone in any
> way. I am already investigating and testing this to deal with the ongoing
> "news" area.
>
> Set up file extensions for your includes with some other than ".html" -- I
> used ".ssi" -- and away you go!
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
> dealt with a cat."
> -- Robert Heinlein