At least the following pages do not validate with W3C's validator http://validator.w3.org List of pages: http://www.mozilla.org/newsbot/ http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/ http://www.mozilla.org/ports/ http://www.mozilla.org/owners.html http://www.mozilla.org/source.html http://www.mozilla.org/build/ http://www.mozilla.org/quality/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/bug-form.html http://www.mozilla.org/bugs/ http://www.mozilla.org/quality/bug-writing-guidelines.html http://www.mozilla.org/tools.html http://www.mozilla.org/faq.html http://www.mozilla.org/search.html http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.1a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/stable.html http://www.mozilla.org/credits/ http://www.mozilla.org/news.html http://www.mozilla.org/status/2002-06-05.html http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0/ http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla1.0.html http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html http://www.mozilla.org/advocacy.html http://www.mozilla.org/status/ http://www.mozilla.org/my-mozilla.html http://www.mozilla.org/editorials/mozilla-overview.html http://www.mozilla.org/update.html http://www.mozilla.org/mozilla-at-one.html http://www.mozilla.org/fear.html http://www.mozilla.org/binaries.html http://www.mozilla.org/docs/contribute.html http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/ http://www.mozilla.org/quality/browser/prescreening.html http://www.mozilla.org/quality/mailnews/tests/ http://www.mozilla.org/editor/logging/api-logging.html http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/purify/ http://www.mozilla.org/newsfeeds.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/ http://www.mozilla.org/performance/ http://www.mozilla.org/wishlist-faq.html http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/ http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/ http://www.mozilla.org/directory/ http://www.mozilla.org/js/ http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/ http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ http://www.mozilla.org/js/scripting/ http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/ http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mstone/ http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/index.html http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/ http://www.mozilla.org/docs/refList/refNSPR/ http://www.mozilla.org/oji/ http://www.mozilla.org/ports/fizzilla/ http://www.mozilla.org/ports/gtk/ http://www.mozilla.org/docs/modunote.htm http://www.mozilla.org/scriptable/ http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/ http://www.mozilla.org/editor/ http://www.mozilla.org/bonsai.html http://www.mozilla.org/tinderbox.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.1.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/boilerplate-1.1/ http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/annotated.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0-annotated-fs.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.0.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.html http://www.mozilla.org/docs/jargon.html http://www.mozilla.org/catalog/end-user/customizing/ http://www.mozilla.org/catalog/end-user/release/
OS: SunOS → All
Assignee: endico → nb84
Summary: Many pages of http://www.mozilla.org do not validate → Make all pages on http://www.mozilla.org validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional or Strict
*** Bug 65768 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Brant Langer Gurganus in n.p.m.d11n wrote: > Would we be able to use the W3C's Log Validator from > <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/LogValidator/>? If you > don't want to visit the site, here is a brief description. > Log Validator analyzes the server logs and determines > the most popular pages. It then validates those pages. > We might be able to modify it to automatically file a > bug on top invalid pages.
I believe strict is the way to go. That way, the page wrapper can be transitional if necessary without making the page invalid again. Plus, most CSS equivalents to <font>, <center> *[align], etc. are pretty well supported to my knowledge. By the way, some of this bug's dependencies need checked since I think I may have made some of them valid when I made some miscellaneous grammar and link fixes.
I agree, it would be good to make them be strict. The only problem is the fact that persistent-style.css (the only stylesheet for moz.org), is locked so that only admins can edit it. Thus, I can not add any css. Chris Hoess has emailed Asa about this to see if something can be done about it. I am kind of holding off on converting stuff to CSS until I hear what will be done about that.
There's script that might be useful linked from http://www.pp.htv.fi/hsivone1/moz-org2strict.html
Are there any bugs open on fixing our styleguide so that it doesn't suggest using <ul> to indent? Shouldn't we be using css, rather than <ul> or <blockquote> to achieve this?
Does anybody reads the style guide even? Judging from past discussion on style issues in the d11n newsgroup, I would say most d11n contributors don't care
I think the main issue is that the site-wide stylesheets are not freely editable and do not offer styles that people would like to use. If somebody came up with a very thorough style sheet and an accompanying style guide, I think it will be followed. As a starter, the slightly updated style guide at moz.zope.org seems pretty good.
Yeah, people read the style guide. When you talk to the mozilla.org folks about working on the website, they ask you to read it. I used it at http://www.mozilla.org/projects/ui/accessibility
See bug 44741. Fantasai has worked on a new style guide, IIRC.
> Yep. http://moz.zope.org/contribute/writing/guide I like it for the most part. Some issues, however: * It's ISO-8859-1 not ISO-8859/1 * There's nothing wrong with using proper quotes and dashes if they are coded as NCRs on ISO-8859-1 pages. * What exactly is wrong about eg. <code> and compared to <pre>? * In what sense is <sup> semantic markup? * "Pages must look decent in NS4+, MSIE4+, and Mozilla. Try to avoid exposing bugs in their CSS support; at the very least, make the page legible." Mozilla has passed the pre-dogfood stage long ago. People can be reasonably be expected to use Mozilla. Why should Mozilla docs avoid exposing the bugs of old browsers? Why should doc writer's spend time checking with such broken browsers?
> * It's ISO-8859-1 not ISO-8859/1 Fixed > * There's nothing wrong with using proper quotes and dashes if they are coded > as NCRs on ISO-8859-1 pages. If you'd like to rewrite that point, go ahead. I copied it directly from the old style guide, and I don't know enough about character encodings to feel confident changing it. > * In what sense is <sup> semantic markup? Changed to <code>. > * What exactly is wrong about eg. <code> and compared to <pre>? a) It's messy. b) They're not non-breaking spaces. They're non-collapsing spaces, and the display *style* is no-wrap. c) For a block, you want *preformatted* (because computer code is *previously* *formatted*), not an inline swamp of and <br> inside a paragraph. Brings up a good point, though. <code> should probably get white-space: pre or -moz-pre-wrap in the stylesheets. > Why should doc writer's spend time checking with such broken browsers? Because the site needs to be reasonably accessible to people using common browsers, and that includes NS4. Note that most authors won't need to worry about this because most styling is handled site-wide, not per-document.
nobody touchs /quality/browser/front-end/testcases/ because I'm on it :-) btw, Asa added .center to persistent.css
> btw, Asa added .center to persistent.css That's worse than align=center. At least align=center is defined in the spec.
*** Bug 138172 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I was investigating an image bug in the frontpage, so I used validator to validate http:\\www.mozilla.org. Homepage of the most standards compatible browser doesn´t validate, what a shame! But there are only two very simple changes needed: change DOCTYPE to 4.01 transitional, and insert a charset declaration, and it will validate, see link with manual overrides: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mozilla.org%2F&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29 This Page Tentatively Validates As HTML 4.01 Transitional (Tentatively Valid)! The document located at <http://www.mozilla.org/> was tentatively found to be Valid. That means it would validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional if you updated the source document to match the options used (typically this message indicates that you used either the Document Type override or the Character Encoding override). Couldn´t these changes be done as soon as possible, for the frontpage only, not waiting until all pages do validate? I don´t want to recommend stubborn IE users Mozilla for reasons of security and standards compatibility, when they will tell me: what about standards at mozilla.org?
Hermann, the page is valid HTML. What you are seeing is actually a limitation of the w3c validator. The charset stuff is bug 89885
I'm planning to make the complete website validate as HTML 4.01 Strict. I have already re-opened several bugs and added a few. And most of them have patches or are fixed again.
Summary: Make all pages on mozilla.org validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional or Strict → Make all pages on mozilla.org validate as HTML 4.01 Strict
Assignee: nbebout → bug
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
QA Contact: daniel.bugmail → nbebout
To avoid having a lot of bugs, this bug is going to be used to fix pages that don't validate. Expect a lot of bug spam, you can un-cc if desired.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Created attachment 158319 [details] [diff] [review] /editor/ This document might need some additional clean-up later. For now, this makes it validate as HTML 4.01 Strict.
Created attachment 158322 [details] [diff] [review] /xpfe/ One day this should be moved to /projects/. However, cleaning and fixing the document can be done now.
Created attachment 158333 [details] [diff] [review] /projects/seamonkey/ This may be checked in, just like the other patches (to make it validate). However, someone who is responsible for this page should take a look at it.
Created attachment 158344 [details] [diff] [review] /rhino/ This document should eventually be moved to /projects/rhino/, obviously.
Comment on attachment 158333 [details] [diff] [review] /projects/seamonkey/ Checked in.
Attachment #158333 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158344 [details] [diff] [review] /rhino/ Checking in mozilla-org/html/rhino/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/rhino/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.26; previous revision: 1.25 done
Attachment #158344 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158352 [details] [diff] [review] /js/scripting/ Apparently the includes messed it up a bit. This patch makes it validate. (We should look at the "horrible" sub navigation some other time.)
Created attachment 158358 [details] [diff] [review] /projects/security/pki/ Have fun checking them in... I will check and fix every file that has a bug after patching tomorrow.
Comment on attachment 158345 [details] [diff] [review] /js/spidermonkey/ Checking in mozilla-org/html/js/spidermonkey/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/js/spidermonkey/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10 done
Attachment #158345 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158363 [details] [diff] [review] /js/spidermonkey/ Same problem as above, damn templates.
Comment on attachment 158363 [details] [diff] [review] /js/spidermonkey/ Checking in index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/js/spidermonkey/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11 done
Attachment #158363 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158318 [details] [diff] [review] /tinderbox.html Checking in mozilla-org/html/tinderbox.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/tinderbox.html,v <-- tinderbox.html new revision: 1.20; previous revision: 1.19 done
Attachment #158318 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158313 [details] [diff] [review] /catalog/end-user/customizing/ Checked in
Attachment #158313 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Owen, Timeless, could you possibly help check some of these in? I'm working on it, but could use some help.
WOW! Spining my Gila tree as we speak, and getting ready for a massive patch-fest. Awesome, Anne! You rock!
Thanks owen, I would do more, but I'm having trouble applying patches right now
=-( I get errors like this while applying: patching file index.html patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line patch: **** malformed patch at line 153: This happens often. Looking into it.
Hrmm, I'm not the only one who gets that error. I wonder if doctor is having problems. IIRC, that is what Anne uses. There is also another bug assigned to email@example.com that has a patch I was trying to apply that will not apply. He uses doctor also.
Argh, that sucks. I have the edited files on my hard disk as well fortunately. Maybe I should just wait till bug 258426 is fixed...
Anne, could you attach some of the edited files? As long as there has not been any changes to the pages since you did the edits, I can just use the edited files to checkin.
Created attachment 158535 [details] /fear.html (file) Ok, this one has probably not been edited. If this works, I'll attach more files and mark the patches obsolete.
> Hrmm, I'm not the only one who gets that error. > > I wonder if doctor is having problems. IIRC, that is what Anne uses. > > There is also another bug assigned to firstname.lastname@example.org that has a patch I > was trying to apply that will not apply. He uses doctor also. Yuck. I don't see any open bugs for it, so I filed bug 258870.
(In reply to comment #67) > Created an attachment (id=158535) > /fear.html (file) > > Ok, this one has probably not been edited. If this works, I'll attach more > files and mark the patches obsolete. Checking in html/fear.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/fear.html,v <-- fear.html new revision: 1.9; previous revision: 1.8 done
Created attachment 158538 [details] /editor/ (file) Encouraged by comment 69, here is another one.
Created attachment 158540 [details] /scriptable/ (file)
Attachment #158323 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158541 [details] /ports/gtk/ (file)
Attachment #158324 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158538 [details] /editor/ (file) Checking in editor/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/editor/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.57; previous revision: 1.56 done
Attachment #158538 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158539 [details] /xpfe/ (file) Checking in xpfe/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/xpfe/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.88; previous revision: 1.87 done
Attachment #158539 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158540 [details] /scriptable/ (file) Checking in scriptable/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/scriptable/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.35; previous revision: 1.34 done
Attachment #158540 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158541 [details] /ports/gtk/ (file) Checking in ports/gtk/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/ports/gtk/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.17; previous revision: 1.16 done
Attachment #158541 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158560 [details] /ports/fizzilla/ (file) I'll, now add the remaing files since this seems to work just as fine as patches.
Attachment #158326 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158562 [details] /mailnews/ (file)
Attachment #158329 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158563 [details] /projects/mstone/ (file)
Attachment #158334 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158564 [details] /projects/mathml/ (file)
Attachment #158339 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158566 [details] /directory/ (file)
Attachment #158349 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158567 [details] /projects/calendar/ (file)
Attachment #158351 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158568 [details] /js/scripting/ (file)
Attachment #158352 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158569 [details] /performance/ (file)
Attachment #158353 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158570 [details] /projects/security/pki/ (file)
Attachment #158358 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158571 [details] /newsfeeds.html (file)
Attachment #158446 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158572 [details] /mailnews/purify/ (file)
Attachment #158449 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158574 [details] /hacking/reviewers.html (file)
Attachment #158452 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158576 [details] /quality/browser/prescreening.html (file) Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/browser/prescreening.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/quality/browser/prescreening.html,v <-- prescreening.html new revision: 1.21; previous revision: 1.20 done
Attachment #158576 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158575 [details] /quality/mailnews/tests/ (file) Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/mailnews/tests/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/quality/mailnews/tests/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.78; previous revision: 1.77 done
Attachment #158575 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 158574 [details] /hacking/reviewers.html (file) Checking in mozilla-org/html/hacking/reviewers.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/hacking/reviewers.html,v <-- reviewers.html new revision: 1.82; previous revision: 1.81 done
Attachment #158574 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Checking in html/newsfeeds.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/newsfeeds.html,v <-- newsfeeds.html new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11 done Checking in html/bugs/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/bugs/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.36; previous revision: 1.35 done Checking in html/directory/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/directory/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.13; previous revision: 1.12 done Checking in html/docs/modunote.htm; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/docs/modunote.htm,v <-- modunote.htm new revision: 1.9; previous revision: 1.8 done Checking in html/js/scripting/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/js/scripting/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done Checking in html/mailnews/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/mailnews/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.55; previous revision: 1.54 done Checking in html/mailnews/purify/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/mailnews/purify/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.45; previous revision: 1.44 done Checking in html/oji/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/oji/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.21; previous revision: 1.20 done Checking in html/performance/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/performance/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.39; previous revision: 1.38 done Checking in html/ports/fizzilla/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/ports/fizzilla/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.49; previous revision: 1.48 done Checking in html/projects/calendar/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/projects/calendar/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.214; previous revision: 1.213 done Checking in html/projects/mathml/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/projects/mathml/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.42; previous revision: 1.41 done Checking in html/projects/mstone/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/projects/mstone/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done Checking in html/projects/security/pki/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/projects/security/pki/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.62; previous revision: 1.61 done
Created attachment 158847 [details] /mozilla-at-one.html (file) Thanks for all the checking in Nicolas. I'll make /quality/help/ a file as well. Apparently despot is a bit horked at the moment so I have to wait I few days before I can do it myself.
Comment on attachment 158854 [details] /about/stafflist (file) Somebody should kick staff to update this, e.g. add ben and mscott...
If they update, make sure they update my version of the document. That would be most welcome.
Created attachment 158859 [details] /quality/help/ (file)
Attachment #158462 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 158861 [details] /tinderbox.html (file) Something went wrong with the previous patch. A double </ul> was added at the end and a strange + sign is somewhere in the source.
Almost all documents mentioned in comment 0 (and some additional ones) now have either a patch (file) or are already fixed. Of course, a lot more files need to be fixed, but it might make sense to open a separate tracking bug for that and closing this one after everything has been solved or moved to it's own bug. Here is a list of remaining issues: http://www.mozilla.org/catalog/end-user/release/ See bug 258433 comment 12 http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html Any markup suggestions? For other /MPL/ pages please see bug 122951 http://www.mozilla.org/docs/modunote.htm It validates, however, see also bug 186527 http://www.mozilla.org/docs/refList/refNSPR/ I guess a 410 should be set up for this one as well. http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/ Should have a separate bug. http://www.mozilla.org/wishlist-faq.html Validates. I might reopen bug 258423 to make semantic improvements. http://www.mozilla.org/quality/mailnews/tests/ Someone should change the ID 'search' to something else, like 'h-search' and link to it as in '#h-search'. (The style guide should mention which ID names are reserved and can't be used in documents I guess.) http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla1.0.html Someone needs to add a HTML 4.01 Strict DTD at the top. http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0/ Only a small mistake. (It would benefit from semantic improvements though.) http://www.mozilla.org/status/2002-06-05.html This and other status updates need to match the style guide. However, doing that is *a lot* of work since I don't have CVS access yet. http://www.mozilla.org/news.html Please see bug 258541 http://www.mozilla.org/credits/ I think we want a prettier credits page in general. That would be a separate bug. http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.1a/ I might do this later. http://www.mozilla.org/owners.html The bug used for this was renamed and resolved fixed. It still needs work though. A new separate bug is needed since this requires some work in the backend. http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html Validates. Might need some semantic improvements.
Thank you for the good job. Here is a new list of invalid pages. Regards http://www.mozilla.org/browser-innovation.html http://www.mozilla.org/events/dev-day-2004/ http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/spam-howto.html http://www.mozilla.org/owners.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/eolas.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2003-10-15.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-02-17.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-05-03.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-06-15.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-06-16.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-06-30.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-08-02.html http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-09-14-02.html http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/live-bookmarks.html http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/0.10.html http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/0.9.html http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/system-requirements.html http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/buttons.html http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/ http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/why/ http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/ http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/release-notes.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/website/index.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xforms/ http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xpcom/book/cxc/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0.2/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.3/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.3a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.3b/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4b/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4rc1/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4rc2/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4rc3/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5b/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5rc1/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5rc2/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.6a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.7/README.html http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.8a1/README.html http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/branding.html http://www.mozilla.org/security/ http://www.mozilla.org/security/shell.html http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.5/extra/using-junk-control.html
I couldn't check in /projects/ef/, you need some permissions for that. I'll check in the other files later today, probably. Checking in mozilla-org/html/mozilla-at-one.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/mozilla-at-one.html,v <-- mozilla-at-one.html new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/update.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/update.html,v <-- update.html new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/about/stafflist.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/about/stafflist.html,v <-- stafflist.html new revision: 1.31; previous revision: 1.30 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/my-mozilla.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/my-mozilla.html,v <-- my-mozilla.html new revision: 1.8; previous revision: 1.7 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/help/index.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/quality/help/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.32; previous revision: 1.31 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/tinderbox.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/tinderbox.html,v <-- tinderbox.html new revision: 1.21; previous revision: 1.20 done
Thanks for the markup cleanup on the calendar project page, but I would appreciate it if you would at least *inform* me (as the owner of the /projects/calendar) beforehand of these changes by CC'ing me on the bug. Thank you.
Simon, I'm sorry. I didn't know that I had to notify people of updates. Seems quite logical though. All, checked in everything except attachment 158858 [details], since I'm not allowed to do that.
I have done most things, except: - /press/* I think this should be a separate (tracking) bug. We should probably find a way to release press releases that always validate and don't require editing after a few years. Same goes for /projects/*, /products/*, /releaes/*. These should go to separate tracking bugs and I believe people are already working on this.
Created attachment 162766 [details] [diff] [review] diff of firefox index.html This should make http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/index.html valid, just added a few backslashes.
http://www.mozilla.org/index.html is also invalid, also fixed by a few backslashes , but it is not as easy to provide a diff for it so I won't.
Created attachment 162772 [details] [diff] [review] makes live-bookmarks.html valid replaced align="left" in http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/live-bookmarks.html to make the page validate as strict, still looks the same after change
Created attachment 162781 [details] [diff] [review] http://www.mozilla.org/events/dev-day-2004/ validates now and looks the same
I'd just like to point out that although the nightly start page http://www.mozilla.org/start/ validates the milestone pages e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.6/ do not.
Thanks Leif Sandstede. Your comments and patches are addressed. Neil, I fixed the 1.6 start page.
I have tried to tackle the http://www.mozilla.org/directory/ part of the webpage. My efforts can be tracked here: http://cvs-www.mozilla.org/webtools/bonsai/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=all&dir=mozilla-org%2Fhtml%2Fdirectory&who=bugzilla%25babylonsounds.com&whotype=match&sortby=Date&date=all&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot The code is generally a huge mess as can be seen by the results, the cleanup and validation part has on the codesize: (+10131/31877) Lines changed.
<http://www.mozilla.org/directory/csdk-docs/> is a huge mess. All kinds of '<a name="123"></a>' constructs which should be replaced with valid ID attributes on the appropriate elements as in '<h3 id="n-123">foo</h3>'. Lot's of invalid markup, inapproriate file names, et cetera. I wonder if anyone is still using that files, since according to Google: <http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Amozilla.org%2Fdirectory%2Fcsdk-docs%2F> it doesn't seem to be much used. You did clean up a lot though, thanks for that.
Simon, please use <http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/markup#snav> instead of a P element with some links and entities inside it.
email@example.com: you trampled some of my changes. this is not acceptable. i've only seen: http://cvs-www.mozilla.org/webtools/bonsai/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla-org/html/ports/fizzilla/index.html&rev=1.48&mark=1.49&root=/cvsroot/ but it's quite likely you trampled other changes i made. i'd rather not have to spend my time undoing your damage...
please resolve this, since this has been migrated to devmo.
What do you mean by "this", Doron? The bug's filed against all pages on mozilla.org, not against any specific one that's been migrated to devmo..
Assignee: www-mozilla-org → nobody
QA Contact: danielwang → www-mozilla-org
Comment on attachment 158858 [details] /projects/ef/ (file) Bug 271000 checked this file in.
Attachment #158858 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 210866 [details] script for mass check. of course this requires you have w3c-validater installed
Created attachment 210867 [details] result when i ran(1) this requires validator and takes a few hours so i attach the result
Created attachment 210868 [details] result when i ran(2) this requires validator and takes a few hours so i attach the result
assigning to me
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
I'd like to hear people comments on some particular issues. 1- Right now, well above 9000 mozilla.org webpages do not validate as HTML 4.01 strict and/or do not follow guidelines as given in Documentation Style Guide <http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/guidelines> mozilla.org Markup Reference <http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/markup> There are many webpages among those 9000+ webpages which have been written more than 5 years ago and are no longer maintained by their original authors: I believe they should be zipped and archived or just removed. Example given: bug 350534. I do not see the point of spending hours trying to upgrade their markup code, editing when their content would need major updating. 2- I believe it is surprising to see that new webpages uploaded on mozilla.org can be created and fail validation and not follow mentioned guidelines. I think addressing this issue should be the very first priority within this meta bugfile. 3- There are project managers or project webpage managers which should be contacted and informed about this bug and the mentioned guidelines. Some, it seems, are not aware of this bugfile nor the of the aforementioned guidelines. What I suggest is that they should be the very first people involved into fixing their own webpages. 4- I filed bug 350527 in the same spirit of this meta bugfile. I believe some sort of connexion with bug 350527 should first be "established". I mean bug 350527 and its goals should be the way to go in order to upgrade the mozilla.org webpages. It establishes a suitable and realistic prioritization of webpages in need of "validation fixing" (if I may use such expression).
Recently, I have fixed several ~= 10 Minimo project pages (see bug 355468). Today, I have fixed http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq (6 errors) and http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/ (4 errors) I want people to know that this bug is still active. If I'm missing something, please speak up in this bugfile.
No longer depends on: 358568
(In reply to comment #137) > There are many webpages among those 9000+ webpages which have been written more > than 5 years ago and are no longer maintained by their original authors: I > believe they should be zipped and archived or just removed. Example given: bug > 350534. I do not see the point of spending hours trying to upgrade their markup > code, editing when their content would need major updating. Pages that might be useful should stay. A reader would much rather have a page with invalid markup (which is pretty much irrelevant) than not have the information at all. Also, for what it's worth, "bugfile" isn't a word; it's better to use "bug" or "bug report".
> Pages that might be useful should stay. Of course. Can someone help me determine which webpages of any project (or just which project) are worth upgrading? I would really appreciate this. 1- The Blackwood project has 331 webpages which fail validation. I sincerly have no idea if those Blackwood project webpages are worth upgrading... or if that whole Blackwood project should be archived. Pretty much all of Blackwood project webpages have not been modified since 2001. Templates pages no longer exist: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/blackwood/templates/ 2- The Electrical Fire project has 59 webpages which fail validation. Should such project webpages be upgraded or should be just archive the whole set of webpages? It seems to me that all of these 59 webpages have not been modified since 2003 or so. 3- The Grendel project has 630 webpages which fail validation. Most of them have not been modified since 1998-1999. etc.
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2003-10-15.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2003-10-15.html,v <-- mozilla-2003-10-15.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done Converted to HTML 4.01 strict; removed some 30 validation markup errors; removed many non-SGML characters.
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-02-17.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-02-17.html,v <-- mozilla-2004-02-17.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-05-03.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-05-03.html,v <-- mozilla-2004-05-03.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Converted to HTML 4.01 strict; removed 9 validation markup errors; removed several non-SGML characters.
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-06-15.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-06-15.html,v <-- mozilla-2004-06-15.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-06-16.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-06-16.html,v <-- mozilla-2004-06-16.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-06-30.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-06-30.html,v <-- mozilla-2004-06-30.html new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-08-02.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-08-02.html,v <-- mozilla-2004-08-02.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-09-14-02.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/press/mozilla-2004-09-14-02.html,v <-- mozilla-2004-09-14-02.html new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.8a1/README.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.8a1/README.html,v <-- README.html new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.7/README.html; /cvsroot/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.7/README.html,v <-- README.html new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done
nb: Please do not touch the QA Contact. firstname.lastname@example.org is a dummy account that allows other webmonkeys such as myself to watch all bugs in the component.
QA Contact: nb → www-mozilla-org
The *WORST* coded webpage on mozilla.org I have seen/encountered so far is http://www.mozilla.org/quality/browser/front-end/testcases/copy-paste/copy-large-text/longtablepage.html with 41652 validation markup errors. That's right: 41652 errors... and that's with a transitional DTD. It even has 4 non-utf8 characters. Click this link to see for yourself: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mozilla.org%2Fquality%2Fbrowser%2Ffront-end%2Ftestcases%2Fcopy-paste%2Fcopy-large-text%2Flongtablepage.html&charset=iso-8859-1&doctype=Inline With a strict DTD (with doctype override), the W3C markup validator reports 41678 validation markup errors
(In reply to comment #152) > The *WORST* coded webpage on mozilla.org I have seen/encountered so far is http://www.mozilla.org/quality/browser/front-end/testcases/copy-paste/copy-large-text/longtablepage.html using current bmo will make it much better i believe ;-)
Many hundreds of validation markup errors in the following webpages: http://www.mozilla.org/quality/intl/test_index.html http://www.mozilla.org/quality/intl/browser/index.html http://www.mozilla.org/quality/intl/browser/charsethandling/testcase-CharsetHandlingI.html http://www.mozilla.org/quality/intl/browser/charsethandling/testcase-CharsetHandlingII.html
I decided to fix that huge and invalid webpage: http://www.mozilla.org/quality/browser/front-end/testcases/copy-paste/copy-large-text/longtablepage.html Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/browser/front-end/testcases/copy-paste/copy-large-text/longtablepage.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/quality/browser/front-end/testcases/copy-paste/copy-large-text/longtablepage.html,v <-- longtablepage.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done
For fans, supporters, voters of this bug ======================================== I can not fix all of the webpages of mozilla.org: that would be an impossible task for a single person. Just finding webpages that have a lot of upgrading/fixing to do is already a colossal task. If you stumble on a webpage that has, say, over 50 validation markup errors when using a strict DTD, then please report it in this bugfile and I'll fix it. If you can provide a list of webpages which each have over 50 validation markup errors (that would be even better), then you are welcomed to mention it in this bugfile or to create a bug report and make such bug as blocking bug 151557. Thank you for your cooperation on this. Gérard
Whiteboard: For providing help, please read comment #156
Could you provide the steps you take to fixup invalid webpages? Note that it should be possible to use Bob Clary's "Spider" tool (http://bclary.com/projects/spider/) to spider mozilla.org and generate a list of webpages that have over 50 validation errors.
Hello Daniel, What I do is install Marc Gueury's extension add-on HTML validation 0.8.4.0 (downloadable from http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ ) and set it to SGML parser so that, as I load/visit a webpage, I get to know how many webpage errors there are in a page. Often, the number I get is lower than what it would be with using a strict DTD. One permanent and customized way to help this bug would be to implement W3C's Log Validator (see bug 350527 and http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/LogValidator/ ). Also, what victory did (see comment #133 and comment #134 with attachment 210866 [details] and attachment 210867 [details]) is great, wonderful and very welcomed . Such reports would be more useful if they could identify webpages with a huge amount of errors as this would help prioritizing the webpages which need to be upgraded. ---------- If you are going to use a software to spider all of the *.mozilla.org webpages, then maybe we should generate a list of webpages that have over 100 validation errors instead. I think this would be safer, wiser as my initial 50 number was for humans surfing, visiting single webpages at mozilla.org.
> the steps you take to fixup invalid webpages? The exact steps I follow depends on how bad or how well structured the webpage is. But these are usually done: - I fix the validation errors; - implement intra-project [crumbs] navigation; - add <link rel="..."> for Site Navigation toolbar; - implement classes defined in m.o. markup|style guidelines; - usually, I fix validation errors by removing unsemantic markup and inserting semantic markup. E.g. <CENTER><P><FONT SIZE=+2><BR>Some title here</FONT></P></CENTER><BR><P><FONT SIZE=+0>By [author's name]</FONT></P> replaced with <h1>Some title here</h1> <address class="author">by [author's name]</address> - <TABLE> used for layout are usually replaced more semantic elements; - <font>, <center>, unneeded <br>s, empty blocks like <p></p>, arbitrary number of are "exterminated" - I try to follow and implement as much as I can from mozilla.org style guidelines http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/guidelines and mozilla.org markup guidelines http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/markup in particular, by using custom CSS classes defined in our m.o. stylesheets: e.g. <p class="note">... instead of <p>Note: ... - if the document is important, then I run the W3C link checker on it to fix broken links - When I meet a webpage that had many cleaning to do, I use HandCoder 0.3.4 from KompoZer 0.77 using the latest W3C Tidy ("HTML Tidy for Windows (vers 14 June 2007)") to pretty print the code, for consistent formating of markup. When you get to know Tidy (and all its 80+ parameters), Tidy is a very useful tool, quite powerful at cleaning all kinds of defects, do all kinds of fixing. - I usually leave a note regarding these m.o. style and markup guidelines in the CVS log so that - hopefully - people involved in the project will notice that there are (markup and style) guidelines for m.o. documentation edition. I indicate how many errors were eradicated when converting the document to HTML 4.01 strict. Cheers, Gérard
I forgot to mention this. Nvu 1.0 and KompoZer 0.77 have interesting and powerful tools for fixing 5 precise and specific bad markup thanks to its "Markup cleaner" feature. The Markup cleaner can fix misnested lists; Tidy cannot fix misnested lists. In the Netscape 4 era, Composer was creating misnested lists in an invalid manner. Also available are other tools like Table Nette http://chevrel.org/fr/extensions/#ext5 which I sometimes use for fixing tables used for tabular data. This "Table nette" extension tool capability is not entirely within the capabilities of Tidy. But the opportunity of using it is rather rare. These tools along with HTML Tidy when wisely used are quite powerful and useful in upgrading webpages.
Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/browser/imaging-bug-writing.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/quality/browser/imaging-bug-writing.html,v <-- imaging-bug-writing.html new revision: 1.13; previous revision: 1.12 done
I made 2 errors regarding http://www.mozilla.org/access/keyboard/interactive http://www.mozilla.org/access/keyboard/layout I'll fix these later.
Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-hebrew.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-hebrew.html,v <-- component-hebrew.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done Fixed 8 markup validation errors; removed target attributes; re-indented code to reach about 75 characters (thus avoiding horizontal scrollbar when comparing version with CVS interface)
Checking in mozilla-org/html/security/older-alerts.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/security/older-alerts.html,v <-- older-alerts.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done
To do: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-arabic.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-asian.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-chinese.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-czech.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-english-other.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-english-us.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-french.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-german.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-italian.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-japanese.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-norwegian.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-other.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-polish.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-portuguese.html http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-spanish.html
Checking in mozilla-org/html/newlayout/testcases/htmlforms/disabledforms.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/newlayout/testcases/htmlforms/disabledforms.html,v <-- disabledforms.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done
All of the webpages (well over 100 of them) within nglayout project (testcases) http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/ should be upgraded.
To upgrade: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.1a/ (8 errors; no doctype decl.) http://www.mozilla.org/status/2002-06-05.html (30 errors; no doctyle decl.)
Checking in mozilla-org/html/status/2002-06-05.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/status/2002-06-05.html,v <-- 2002-06-05.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-arabic.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-arabic.html,v <-- component-arabic.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-asian.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-asian.html,v <-- component-asian.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-chinese.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-chinese.html,v <-- component-chinese.html new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-czech.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-czech.html,v <-- component-czech.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-english-other.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-english-other.html,v <-- component-english-other.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-english-us.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-english-us.html,v <-- component-english-us.html new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-french.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-french.html,v <-- component-french.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-german.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-german.html,v <-- component-german.html new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-italian.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-italian.html,v <-- component-italian.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-japanese.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-japanese.html,v <-- component-japanese.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-norwegian.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-norwegian.html,v <-- component-norwegian.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-other.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-other.html,v <-- component-other.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-polish.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-polish.html,v <-- component-polish.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-portuguese.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-portuguese.html,v <-- component-portuguese.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-spanish.html could not be processed because there are character encoding problems with the page.
Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.1a/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.1a/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.31; previous revision: 1.30 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/filetests.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/filetests.html,v <-- filetests.html new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/access/qa/tiny/readonly.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/access/qa/tiny/readonly.html,v <-- readonly.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/access/qa/tiny/quote.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/access/qa/tiny/quote.html,v <-- quote.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/plugin-identifier.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/plugin-identifier.html,v <-- plugin-identifier.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/bi-directional-plugin-scripting.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/bi-directional-plugin-scripting.html,v <-- bi-directional-plugin-scripting.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/scripting-plugins.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/scripting-plugins.html,v <-- scripting-plugins.html new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/coretests.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/coretests.html,v <-- coretests.html new revision: 1.25; previous revision: 1.24 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/plugin_scripting_ABI_technote.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/plugins/plugin_scripting_ABI_technote.html,v <-- plugin_scripting_ABI_technote.html new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1 done
To do: http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/ http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.0.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.html Also Xhtml webpages from MathML directory: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/start.xhtml (22 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/start-hebrew.xhtml (23 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/start-thai.xhtml (22 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/basics.xhtml (39 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/mfrac.xhtml (20 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/mo.xhtml (24 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/mtable.xhtml (21 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/mspace.xhtml (21 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/mmultiscripts.xhtml (20 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/roots.xhtml (20 errors) http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/demo/extras.xhtml (41 errors with W3C validator) Best would be to open a specific bug for those.
Bug 445029: Make several MathML xhtml demo webpages validate (with no errors) has just been created for this purpose.
No longer depends on: 445029
To do: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0.2/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.3/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.3a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.3b/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4b/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4rc1/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4rc2/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4rc3/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5a/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5b/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5rc1/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.5rc2/ http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.6a/
Checking in mozilla-org/html/access/qa/win-webcontent-kbnav.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/access/qa/win-webcontent-kbnav.html,v <-- win-webcontent-kbnav.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/ftptests.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/ftptests.html,v <-- ftptests.html new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/access/qa/win-webcontent-jaws.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/access/qa/win-webcontent-jaws.html,v <-- win-webcontent-jaws.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/datatests.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/quality/networking/testing/datatests.html,v <-- datatests.html new revision: 1.8; previous revision: 1.7 done
The webpages http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/ http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.0.html http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.html http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/extension/199805/preprocess.html are not editable, at least several parts of their content like the doctype decl., the <head> part, etc. and they have several <!--#include file="[URI].html"--> so I prefer to leave them all exactly as they are right now.
I fixed the related character encoding problems with that page: Checking in mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-spanish.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/projects/tech-evangelism/site/component-spanish.html,v <-- component-spanish.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.6a/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.6a/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3 done
Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5rc2/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5rc2/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5rc1/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5rc1/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5b/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5b/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5a/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.5a/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done
(In reply to comment #171) > nglayout project (testcases) > http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/ > should be upgraded. Bug 446213 has been created to take care of nglayout project (testcases) http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/
Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.4rc3/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.4rc3/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.22; previous revision: 1.21 done Checking in mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.4rc2/index.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/releases/mozilla1.4rc2/index.html,v <-- index.html new revision: 1.23; previous revision: 1.22 done
Product: mozilla.org → Websites
Notes about the layout strategy in mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/doc/table-layout.html needs cleaning up; in particular: <table border width="200px">, character encoding mismatch, transitional DTD.
Checking in mozilla-org/html/newlayout/doc/table-layout.html; /www/mozilla-org/html/newlayout/doc/table-layout.html,v <-- table-layout.html new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4 done
Assigned to default assignee Marking as NEW
Assignee: bugzilla → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Summary: Make all pages on mozilla.org validate as HTML 4.01 Strict → Make all pages on mozilla.org validate as HTML5
The last bug editor changed the summary to HTML5. That doesn't make sense. HTML5 is not even a proposed or candidate recommendation, only a working draft so there's nothing to validate against. Additionally, if that is the direction to take, this bug should be closed and a new one opened most likely.
My view on this is that Mozilla is dedicated to advancing the state of the art on the web and we can do that through our websites as well as through our products. Even if HTML5 isn't completed yet, we can still use what we can to create a modern website. That's what we've been doing and to show that we've been using the HTML5 doctype for a while now. For this specific bug, as Brant suggested perhaps we should close this one and open a new one if people agree on the switch? FWIW, there is at least an experimental HTML5 validator that can be used to check for validation problems on the site. http://html5.validator.nu/
Closing old Mozilla.org website bugs due to them not being relevant to the new Python-based Bedrock system. Re-open if this is a critical bug and should be resolved on the new system too.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Let's close meta bugs that are still very much relevant! Yay!
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org
Going through old bugs. We're working on incorporating HTML5 into the site, so closing this bug. Every new page validates in HTML5 For more info bug triage: https://blog.mozilla.org/websites/2012/11/15/mozilla-org-bug-triage-process/
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago → 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.