Hi,
I've recently checked Mediawikis output for XHTML 1.0 Strict compliance. The only error that is occuring all the time is border attribture to the wikimedia logo at the bottom of the page.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNov...
<strike>I can't remember seeing other validation errors besides this one in the W3C validator.</strike>
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGeo...
9 erros.
There seem to be no tickets in the Mediazilla that refer to XHTML strict (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209).
Besides the more or less academic use of having XHTML strict output rather than XTHML Transitional, is it actually an achievable goal for our kind of output?
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
Besides the more or less academic use of having XHTML strict output rather than XTHML Transitional, is it actually an achievable goal for our kind of output?
Well, there would be no particular benefit to XHTML strict other than patting ourselves on the back. :)
Personally I wouldn't even worry about XHTML strict until the day when we can guarantee *well-formed* output 100% of the time. Then you can start worrying about also *validating* (proper element nesting, validation of attribute values, transformation of various deprecated elements and attributes to equivalents that pass the strict DTD).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Hello,
Personally I wouldn't even worry about XHTML strict until the day when we can guarantee *well-formed* output 100% of the time. Then you can start worrying about also *validating* (proper element nesting, validation of attribute values, transformation of various deprecated elements and attributes to equivalents that pass the strict DTD).
Ummm, isn't it 'fake' XHTML every time Content-type: text/html is passed? Doesn't IE fail miserably if proper content type is passed? :)
Domas
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org