GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 47431
Change DOCTYPE tag in Nautilus Quick Reference
Last modified: 2004-12-22 21:47:04 UTC
The DOCTYPE in the beginning of the Nautilus Quick Reference is <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> I believe this doctype to be incorrect. If you go to http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcvs.gnome.org%2Flxr%2Fsource%2Fnautilus%2Fhelp%2Fnautilus-quick-reference%2FC%2Findex.html you will see that there are many errors reported about "there is no attribute XYZ for this element (in this HTML version)". The problem is that the HTML in the document is not so strictly conforming to the HTML 3.2 standard as the DOCTYPE says it is. It has a lot of attributes from HTML 4.x. You can find a guide about doctypes here: http://www.htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/doctype.html I think the doctype should be changed to the better suiting <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> The document still will not be error-free, but all "HTML version" errors will be gone. I'll adress those other html errors in other bug reports. ------- Additional Comments From don@eazel.com 2001-03-06 09:27:07 ---- Not a 1.0 blocker. ------- Additional Comments From vera@eazel.com 2001-03-06 11:14:39 ---- Accepting, though I am mystified as to how this tag got into that file. I didn't put it there... Dan? ------- Additional Comments From dan@eazel.com 2001-03-06 11:43:01 ---- I think 'tidy' inserted this line. I had to run html tidy on this file because when I got it, almost the entire document (from </HEAD> to </HTML>) was one line and had a lot of ^M characters which made it pretty impossible for a translator to translate or for us to modify. My guess is that this happened when Arlo modified it. We should figure out what the best way to prevent these problems in the future is. Presumably we should keep the document away from certain HTML editors which produce invalid HTML and which munge it into one big line with invalid return characters. Although tidy fixed many of the invalid HTML problems, there were a number of other errors with the file which tidy found and did not fix, and which I also did not bother to fix. It may be worth running tidy again and fixing the other HTML problems. Vera - Is it right that the document got munged by some HTML editor which Arlo was using? ------- Additional Comments From menthos@menthos.com 2001-03-06 11:56:43 ---- I think the best thing to do is not to run any automatic html-fixing program at all, but to fix the individual errors and verify with a service like http://validator.w3.org, repeat if necessary. Running a tidying tool will change html code and structure in many places even if it is not necessary, which makes diffs almost worthless and makes updating translations harder since text content changes are made impossible to spot. It also poses the risk of introducing new problems. As for the DOCTYPE tag, it is mandatory (and validator.w3.org will complain if it is missing). Making the DOCTYPE change mentioned here and fixing the other html errors (bug 47432 and bug 47433) will make this document fully compliant with HTML 4.01 according to validator.w3.org. ------- Additional Comments From jonallen@sdf.lonestar.org 2001-05-31 00:17:09 ---- Reassigning Vera's bugs to Dan. ------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2001-09-09 21:08 ------- Bug blocks bug(s) 47432.
This oughta be fixed for 2.0. Standards matter, and this should only take a couple of hours. I'll take assignment myself.
Fixed somewhere along the way.