On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:01:19PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Martin Weber <Ephaeton@gmx.net> wrote:
>=20
> 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.

Yes, if you use XHTML-Transitional, pages remain as always, with the same
tags. The only thing is that you need to meet some requirements, like
the following:
- Close all tags.
- Put all attribute values between double commas "".
- All tag and attribute names go in lowercase.

It is also good to use header tags instead of font's, but this is not
required, note, in transitional.

XHTML-Strict is another world, and it arises some problems. With it,
you MUST use CSS if you want to change the look of the page, and well,
it seems that you don't like the idea, and I understand why.

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

Well, as noted, XHTML sites (w3 for example, which is transitional) is
viewed fine from any browser...

> 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.

Okay, I will try to move translated pages to xhtml. Just one thing about
the spanish translation. You can see how it progresses on it by looking
at: http://jmmv.dyndns.org/NetBSD/es. The server may be down some hours,
sorry.

> 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).

Ahh, I don't know what you would like here. For my pages, I'm using the
php approach, which requires processing each time. Maybe it is not a
good idea if netbsd's webserver is very loaded, no idea.

> 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.

As for this, it would be a bit annoying, although it is faster for
server answers. If it is done the Right Way (TM) it will also be
valid and nice ;)

Regards

--=20
Of course it runs NetBSD - http://www.netbsd.org
HispaBSD member - http://www.hispabsd.org
Julio Merino <jmmv@hispabsd.org>