Martin Weber <Ephaeton@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:36:07PM +0200, Julio Merino wrote:
> > [use css & xhtml ?]
> 
> Well, none of our supported browsers supports those fully :)

As for CSS, I don't know, but XHTML:
They don't?  I have not encountered any problems with XHTML, as long as
it fully validates.  http://www.w3.org for example seems just fine in
lynx, links and mozilla.

> I dislike writing documentation which has to be viewed by
> microsoft products :> And yes, there might be browsers supporting
> this stuff, but if you use a combination of dillo, links and
> (sometimes) netscape (4.7) because you have the "typical"
> netbsd machine (i.e. not more horsepower than the combined
> formula one cars) and don't want to wait half a minute for
> even plainest pages to appear and render, then you shouldn't
> be locked out from our documentation either!

Agreed - the website needs to be accessible from any browser (ie lowest
common denominator), yet standards compliant (ie validated!).

> I am strictly against using those newer features unless they are
> supported by my "legacy" applications (and face it, there's only
> shit as browsers under unix, pervert enough), because I really
> dislike to lock myself out of my work.

I'm not opposed to XHTML - and I think it may actually be worth a try if
you, Julio, want to move the spanish translation to XHTML.  Then we can
see how well it scales and consider moving other pages over time.

I also do like the idea of separating common things (like the
dislaimer-footer) and using "include"-like mechanisms, but I'm not sure
in how far we want this to be done server-side (ie during file-request
from the client) or at "compile"-time (ie when the document is created,
through make).

The latter would require _all_ files to be generated through "make" --
I'm quite sure we could extend list2html to generate the proper header
and footer.

Anyway, all things worth discussing, me thinks.

-Jan