Known Vulnerabilities in Mozilla Products has 97 validation markup errors


11 years ago
6 years ago


(Reporter: Gérard Talbot, Unassigned)


Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)





11 years ago
Mozilla is "An advocate for standards on the Net"
"we're making one of the most standards-compliant browsers around. It would be
bad show to have an incompliant website." Documentation Style Guide on validation

The "Known Vulnerabilities in Mozilla Products" webpage also needs a bit of tuning so that it can meet Documentation Style Guide
and Markup Reference

It can be optimized to use already available classes (1) and style declarations defined in m.o. stylesheets. This way, we avoid redundancy, over-declared CSS declarations, multiple definitions. 
The markup code can be optimized to use better semantic: currently, the webpage uses a lot of <br> (444 occurences of <br> to be precise) which is often a sign of poor semantic, and here, it seems to me to be the case.

The 97 validation markup errors are caused in great part because of misnested anchors: 

(one misnested anchor at around line 1154)
<a id="seamonkey1.0.8">
<h3 id="seamonkey1.1.1">Fixed in SeaMonkey 1.1.1 and 1.0.8</h3>

which I believe should+could be corrected like this:

<h3 id="seamonkey1.1.1">Fixed in SeaMonkey 1.1.1 and <a id="seamonkey1.0.8">1.0.8</a></h3>


(1) e.g.: 

At line 77:

<p id="toc">
<a href="#Firefox">Firefox vulnerabilities</a><br>
<a href="#Thunderbird">Thunderbird vulnerabilities</a><br>
<a href="#SeaMonkey">SeaMonkey vulnerabilities</a><br>
<a href="#Mozilla">Mozilla Suite vulnerabilities</a><br>

<a href="older-vulnerabilities.html">Older vulnerabilities</a>

can be replaced with

<ul class="toc">
 <li><a href="#Firefox">Firefox vulnerabilities</a></li>
 <li><a href="#Thunderbird">Thunderbird vulnerabilities</a></li>
 <li><a href="#SeaMonkey">SeaMonkey vulnerabilities</a></li>
 <li><a href="#Mozilla">Mozilla Suite vulnerabilities</a></li>
 <li><a href="older-vulnerabilities.html">Older vulnerabilities</a></li>

which is more compact, better semantic and is what is recommended at

Cheers, Gérard

Comment 1

11 years ago

I can fix this bug. Is it ok if I fix the markup code? Or do you prefer to do it yourself?

Comment 2

11 years ago
Didier & Gerard,

I've made a few minor changes and the page now validates as HTML 4.01 Strict. See

I did not go thru the algorithm that Gerard has and would suggest we wait until this coming Monday when the owner of this doc, Dan Veditz, is back in town. He should weigh in on the removal of <br>'s and adherence to the guidelines.


Comment 3

10 years ago
Resolving as FIXED

The other part of this bug (better semantic, better markup code) has been filed under bug 431261.
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED


10 years ago
Product: → Websites


6 years ago
Component: → General
Product: Websites →
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.