122951 - NPL-1.1.html and MPL-1.1.html needs cleanup

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect)

Description

[Henrik Gemal]

the files NPL-1.1.html and MPL-1.1.html needs a cleanup.
chrome://global/content/MPL-1.1.html
chrome://global/content/NPL-1.1.html

both contains 
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.5 [en]C-NSCP  (Win95; U) [Netscape]">
come on...
we're using a version 4.5 to write stuff that ships with Mozilla...?

the files also seems to contain double line spacing.

Comment 1

[timeless]

they're based on http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html which have the same 
quirks. if you want cleanup, then i'm going to ask that the website clean up 
first.

Comment 2

[Henrik Gemal]

CC'ing some of the people that converted the "about:" pages into proper HTML.

Comment 3

[James Cox]

-> taking QA contact so I don't need to watch Dawn anymore. ;)

Comment 4

[Owen Marshall (Not reading bugmail)]

-->page owner

Comment 5

[Robert Mohr]

*** Bug 163189 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6

[basic]

what's the requirement here? Does the formatting need to be preserved? Does it
need to look the same in non-css browsers? I'd be willing to do something about
this, if someone would give me a hint as to what should be done.

Comment 7

[Anne (:annevk)]

Attachment: better HTML

This validates and uses some improved markup. (Valid HTML 4 Strict.) I'm not
sure what kind of markup people had in mind, but this certainly improves the
older version.

I was wondering, should the versions Mozilla has intern be converted to XHTML?

Comment 8

[fantasai]

Comments on the attachment:

Definitions should use <dl>, not <b>.
There are a lot of stray &nbsp;.
Preformatted text (e.g. the force-wrapped fill-in text) should be marked as <pre>.
Don't use <p class="note"> there, it will generate Note: in front of [NOTE: if
the mozilla.org style sheets take effect on the document. (For sample text like
that, I think we want to keep the markup pure HTML with no classes.)
Unless there's a legal consequence (I don't believe there is, but I'm not a
lawyer), sections capitalized for emphasis should be marked as <strong>,
possibly <strong class="very-strong">, and styled to with text-transform.
References to other sections should be hyperlinked.

Comment 9

[Anne (:annevk)]

Attachment: better HTML #2

This one takes in account the comments. Every section now has an ID that looks
like 'section-{no}-{suffix}'. This is at the cost of semantics, but makes it a
lot easier to link to.

Added the STRONG element, but I didn't convert the text to lowercase yet (if
that was needed).

Also, is there are a reason for the first 6 headers to be in lowercase and the
last 7 in uppercase?

I'm going to bed now, will try to make a final document tomorrow if everything
is clear by then.

Comment 10

[Anne (:annevk)]

fantasai, could you do a second review? If it matches your criteria, could you
check it in as well?

Comment 11

[fantasai]

I just checked with a lawyer about the capitalization: it's not legally
significant. So

a) the code needs to be wrapped to lines around 72-80 characters long
b) capitalized sections and section headers should be downcased and use <strong
   class="very-strong"> (which will effect the capitalization via
   'text-transform' anyway)
c) Replace the text of Exhibit A with the plain text version (from "the contents
   of this file" to "[___] License." not including quote marks, and mark it as
   <pre>.

Other than that, it looks good.

Comment 12

[Anne (:annevk)]

Attachment: even more improved (mpl-1.1)

fantasai, what next? This should be checked in the source and website, right?

Comment 13

[Steffen Wilberg]

I'm not the one to make decisions here, but I want to share some quick observations:

The new title doesn't look as nice as the old one.

The definitions (in the first section) are easier to read in the original
version. They are meant to be sentences, so let's not introduce line breaks.
Instead, keep the defined terms strong.

1.8.1 and 1.10.1 are not meant to be subsections of 1.8 or 1.10.

The link in 1.12 doesn't work.

Don't change 1.9.A and 1.9.B to 1.9.1 and 1.9.2!
Don't change 2.1.a-d to 2.1.1.4! Same for 2.2! Otherwise the references/links to
a/b doesn't make sense.

Remove the numbers before 8.1 - 8.4. Don't change 8.2.a-b to 8.2.1-2!

I didn't read through the whole thing, but I spotted a typo you introduced in
"7. Disclaimer of warrany" ("warranty" instead).

Comment 14

[Anne (:annevk)]

Steffen, I'll fix some of your mentioned errors. However, some of the errors you
mention come from the default styling of certain elements, like OL and are not
my fault. I merely changed the markup to match the content. If Mozilla has a
default style of 1., 2. instead of a., b... We can overwrite that with style
sheets, but I was currently only improving the markup.

If you viewed source for example, you would have seen that 8.2a (presented in
some browser as 8.2.1 at the moment) has a link of '#section-8.2-a'.

Comment 15

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Whoa, there, guys :-)

Whatever you do to the markup, the text should not change in _any_ way in any
modern browser. That includes section numbers and capitalisation (which Mitchell
believes _is_ legally significant; there's a requirement that the warranty
disclaimer be 'prominent').

Gerv

Comment 16

[Anne (:annevk)]

Gerv, should it be the same in any modern browser without styles applied as well?

fantasai, any suggestions on what to do now?

Comment 17

[Nick Bebout]

CC'ing [e-mail].

I think he might want to provide input into this.

Comment 18

[Steffen Wilberg]

<ol style="list-style-type: upper-latin">
doesn't work in IE, it displays numbers instead. I guess we want a correct
display of the MPL even in that thing.

<ol type="A">
is deprecated and doesn't validate as HTML 4.01 Strict. But it does validate as
Transitional. I'd suggest to use this doctype to still trigger standards
compliance mode:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Of course we could also refrain from using <ol>.

Comment 19

[fantasai]

I agree with Steffen about switching to Transitional. The list styling is
critical to the document so it should be marked in the HTML.

Exhibit A should be a pure copy from the plain text version of the file, with
no additional markup. Copy it from here:
  http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.txt

You might want to add
.very-strong { text-transform: uppercase; }
to the top of the file.

Other than that, it looks good. (The text lines are still a bit too long imho,
but it's wrapped now so I'll let that slide. ;) Get review from Mitchell and
it's good to go.

Comment 20

[Mitchell Baker]

I'll try to look at this in the next couple of days.  It won't be tomorrow
though, I'm pretty sure of that.

mitchell

Comment 21

[Anne (:annevk)]

Attachment: comments addressed

IE does support 'lower-alpha', which is essentially the same thing:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/properties/liststyletype.asp>.
I needed to use it because IE applies 'list-style' even when I'm setting an
element to 'display:block'. I did use <ol type="a"> for everything by the way.

Getting chapter 1 in sentences almost worked out by using 'dt{float:left}' plus
some additional style rules. However, Mozilla dropped all spaces (probably
correct) so it wasn't really a correct sentence anymore. Any suggestions?

Comment 22

[timeless]

anne: to be clear. THOU SHALT *NOT* commit this file without approval from mitchell.

Comment 23

[fantasai]

I wouldn't worry about the formatting of the definition list, imho it's fine
as-is. (The correct way to handle it would be to put
  dt { display: run-in; }
not floats.)
Let's not complicate the formatting with CSS hacks.

Section 8 should just be paragraphs; they're numbered paragraphs more than they
are list items, and this is the sort of document where I want absolutely
*minimal* use of formatting tweaks..

The NOTE at the end should be taken out of the <pre> and put in a regular
paragraph. The brackets may be removed.

Comment 24

[Anne (:annevk)]

Attachment: comment 23 addressed

Comment 25

[Mitchell Baker]

Looking this over briefly, it looks fine, but I haven't checked it thoroughtly.

If:  the text and identificationn of subsections (the a, b and c stuff) is
unchanged and the changes are in the markup to make it more correct,

then it is OK with to check this in.

thanks to timeless for making sure I'm invovled.  Thanks to Anne for great
patience in waiting for me ;-)

Comment 26

[Anne (:annevk)]

Attachment: used patch

Comment 27

[Anne (:annevk)]

This bug has been fixed. Thanks to all involved.

Comment 28

[Steffen Wilberg]

We should fix this in the code as well:
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/xpfe/global/resources/content/MPL-1.1.html
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/toolkit/content/MPL-1.1.html

Comment 29

[Steffen Wilberg]

Attachment: xpfe and toolkit patch

Comment 30

[Steffen Wilberg]

I simply copied the file from mozilla-org/html/MPL/MPL-1.1.html to
mozilla/xpfe/global/resources/content/MPL-1.1.html and
mozilla/toolkit/content/MPL-1.1.html.
Do I need a review for this, is is Mitchell's brief look (comment 25) enough?

Comment 31

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

The same file may not be appropriate, and I have another change to that file.
Please file another bug and assign it to me.

Gerv

Comment 32

[Anne (:annevk)]

Per comment 31 this is fixed again, follow-up bug is bug 272927.