Thread: HTML 4.01 docs + xhtml header on postgresql.org
Hi all, So I was poking around a bit, trying to see how hard it would be to clean up the HTML that the docs get turned into. If you look at any doc page on postgresql.org, such as <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/tutorial-advanced-intro.html>, and run it through a validator like validator.w3.org, you'll see a whole ton of XHTML validation errors. However, if you compare the raw html generated by "make html", it validates as HTML 4.01 (well, for the most part). It looks like postgresql.org rewrites the first chunk of each doc. page with its own XHTML, so that it can include its banner, search box, etc. However, this is seriously messing up the validation of the doc. pages on postgresql.org, as it's a mix of XHTML and HTML 4.01. Now, what I'd *really* like is to get the doc pages building in clean XHTML+CSS, though I'm a bit wary of how much work that's going to involve. Anyone else interested in this idea? And in the meantime, is there anything that can be reasonably done about the postgresql.org pages? I sort of doubt folks want to move back entirely to HTML 4.01, but just thought I'd ask. Josh
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 20:54 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > Now, what I'd *really* like is to get the doc pages building in clean > XHTML+CSS, though I'm a bit wary of how much work that's going to > involve. Anyone else interested in this idea? I am interested. I think it would be a worthwhile project. I however don't have any resources to do so. JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 18:15, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 20:54 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > >> Now, what I'd *really* like is to get the doc pages building in clean >> XHTML+CSS, though I'm a bit wary of how much work that's going to >> involve. Anyone else interested in this idea? > > I am interested. I think it would be a worthwhile project. I however > don't have any resources to do so. Note that the code for the new website generates a more correct HTML code by passing it through tidy. I'm not sure it produces completely accurate HTML of course ;) But if you're oging to work on it, that's the proper point to start. (code can be found as the pgweb project on git.postgresql.org) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 18:15, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 20:54 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >> >>> Now, what I'd *really* like is to get the doc pages building in clean >>> XHTML+CSS, though I'm a bit wary of how much work that's going to >>> involve. Anyone else interested in this idea? >> >> I am interested. I think it would be a worthwhile project. I however >> don't have any resources to do so. > > Note that the code for the new website generates a more correct HTML > code by passing it through tidy. I'm not sure it produces completely > accurate HTML of course ;) But if you're oging to work on it, that's > the proper point to start. > > (code can be found as the pgweb project on git.postgresql.org) Thanks for the pointer. [.. looking ..] nice, didn't realize you guys were using Django, that's my favorite web framework. At the moment I'm poking through the SGML documentation pages. There are some common and easy-to-fix errors (mostly nesting of <para> nodes which produces bogus HTML, e.g. acronyms.sgml). I should be able to post a patch this weekend to fix a whole bunch of these. Then there is some broken HTML produced by <xref> nodes which look alright in the sgml source (e.g. history.sgml), and I'm betting comes from problems in stylesheet.dsl. I don't have a fix for these at the moment, since I'm unfamiliar with DSSSL. Josh