Re: svn commit: r14931 - trunk/www

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r14931 - trunk/www

kfogel
[hidden email] writes:

> Log:
> Run 'www/validate.sh', and fix errors so discovered.
> Note: Includes changes to some ID attributes which were not valid XML names.
>
> * www/project_links.html: Fix bogus tag.
> * www/faq.html: Fix bogus tags. Change ID "301-error" to "http-301-error".
>     Fix some bogus IDs which were incorrect duplicates of other FAQ items!
> * www/roadmap.html: Escape ampersands as entities.
> * www/svn_1.2_releasenotes.html: Escape ampersands as entities.
>     Change ID "1.0-deprecation" to "svn-1.0-deprecation".
> * www/index.html: Fix bogus tags.
> * www/project_tasks.html: Fix bogus tags. Escape ampersands as entities.

I understand the desire for valid names, but how serious a problem
were these causing?  By removing them, we're potentially breaking
links.  It might be better to leave the old names for compatibility,
while still adding the new names (so that links created from now on
don't exacerbate the problem).

r14913 is a good example of this, search for "compatibility" in its diff.

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r14931 - trunk/www

Max Bowsher
[hidden email] wrote:

> [hidden email] writes:
>> Log:
>> Run 'www/validate.sh', and fix errors so discovered.
>> Note: Includes changes to some ID attributes which were not valid XML
>> names.
>>
>> * www/project_links.html: Fix bogus tag.
>> * www/faq.html: Fix bogus tags. Change ID "301-error" to
>> "http-301-error".
>>     Fix some bogus IDs which were incorrect duplicates of other FAQ
>> items!
>> * www/roadmap.html: Escape ampersands as entities.
>> * www/svn_1.2_releasenotes.html: Escape ampersands as entities.
>>     Change ID "1.0-deprecation" to "svn-1.0-deprecation".
>> * www/index.html: Fix bogus tags.
>> * www/project_tasks.html: Fix bogus tags. Escape ampersands as entities.
>
> I understand the desire for valid names, but how serious a problem
> were these causing?  By removing them, we're potentially breaking
> links.  It might be better to leave the old names for compatibility,
> while still adding the new names (so that links created from now on
> don't exacerbate the problem).

The old names are absolutely invalid IDs in an XML document - they actually
cause validation to fail.

There is no way to retain the old IDs without rendering the page invalid.

Max.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r14931 - trunk/www

kfogel
"Max Bowsher" <[hidden email]> writes:

> > I understand the desire for valid names, but how serious a problem
> > were these causing?  By removing them, we're potentially breaking
> > links.  It might be better to leave the old names for compatibility,
> > while still adding the new names (so that links created from now on
> > don't exacerbate the problem).
>
> The old names are absolutely invalid IDs in an XML document - they
> actually cause validation to fail.
>
> There is no way to retain the old IDs without rendering the page invalid.

True, but a bit orthogonal to my question :-).

I understand that those old IDs were invalid, meaning that they cause
validation to fail.  However, people do not browse the web through
validators, but through browsers.  So my question is, is validation
important enough to be worth breaking links?  I'm not so much worried
about the svn_1.2_releasenotes.html change as the faq.html change,
since the FAQ is a frequently-cited document that had had that ID for
a while (I believe).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r14931 - trunk/www

Max Bowsher
[hidden email] wrote:

> "Max Bowsher" <[hidden email]> writes:
>>> I understand the desire for valid names, but how serious a problem
>>> were these causing?  By removing them, we're potentially breaking
>>> links.  It might be better to leave the old names for compatibility,
>>> while still adding the new names (so that links created from now on
>>> don't exacerbate the problem).
>>
>> The old names are absolutely invalid IDs in an XML document - they
>> actually cause validation to fail.
>>
>> There is no way to retain the old IDs without rendering the page invalid.
>
> True, but a bit orthogonal to my question :-).
>
> I understand that those old IDs were invalid, meaning that they cause
> validation to fail.  However, people do not browse the web through
> validators, but through browsers.  So my question is, is validation
> important enough to be worth breaking links?  I'm not so much worried
> about the svn_1.2_releasenotes.html change as the faq.html change,
> since the FAQ is a frequently-cited document that had had that ID for
> a while (I believe).

It just occurred to me to wonder why the validator suddenly began
complaining... before, the fragments were marked up with name attributes,
but by making them id attributes, they became subject to XML name
restrictions - so I added in an <a name=""> tag to hold the compatibility
link.

Max.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]