remove the outdated mozilla.org/newlayout

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

RESOLVED FIXED
10 years ago
6 years ago

People

(Reporter: bugzilla, Assigned: samuel.sidler+old)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

(Reporter)

Description

10 years ago
This bug comes from bug 151557 comment 171

http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/ (transitional DTD; 4 errors)

Stress testcases:
----------------
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/stress/ (no doctype; 4 errors)
- 13 webpages from http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/stress/ do not validate

CSS testcases:
-------------
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/ (no doctype; 5 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/tier1.html (no doctype; 2 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/fontproperties.html (no doctype; 2 errors)
- 51 webpages from http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/fontproperties.html (transitional 4.0 DTD with no error: those 51 webpages should probably be upgraded because they all trigger backward-compatible "quirks" rendering mode)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/colorbgproperties.html (Color and Background Properties) has no doctype declaration, uses a lot of <br>
- all (50+) webpages from http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/colorbgproperties.html (eg testcases/css/sec531aqua.htm) have no doctype declaration
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/textproperties.html and all its test-webpages should be upgraded
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/boxproperties.html and all its test-webpages should be upgraded
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/classificationproperties.html and all its test-webpages should be upgraded
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/collapsemargin.html (no doctype decl., at least 5 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/boxspans.html (no doctype decl.) need to be upgraded

DOM testcases:
-------------
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/dom/ (no doctype decl.) need to be upgraded
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/dom/removechild1.html need to be upgraded
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/dom/scriptsrc.html (no doctype decl.) need to be upgraded
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/dom/trid.html (no doctype decl.) need to be upgraded

Layout testcases:
----------------
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/ (no doctype decl., at least 3 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/phrasal.html (no doctype decl., at least 2 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/lists.html (no doctype decl., character encoding problems, at least 2 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/quotes.html (no doctype decl., character encoding problems, at least 2 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/tablecolumns.html (no doctype decl., at least 2 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/columnconstraints.html (no doctype decl., at least 4 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/hr.html (no doctype decl., at least 3 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/layout/entities.html (transitional 4.0 DTD;) has no error but will trigger backward-compatible "quirks" mode, therefore needs to be upgraded.

HTML forms testcases:
--------------------
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/htmlforms/fieldset.html (no doctype decl., at least 4 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/htmlforms/label.html (no doctype decl., at least 4 errors)
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/htmlforms/percentwidthinheritence.html (no doctype decl., at least 4 errors)

Printing and print preview testcases:
------------------------------------
- http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/printing/ (transitional 4.01 DTD) has 6 errors and triggers backward-compatible "quirks" mode, therefore needs to be upgraded.
- all 25 testcases webpages from http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/printing/ have no doctype declaration and/or have many validation markup errors.


Related mozilla.org guidelines:
==============================

mozilla.org Markup Reference
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/markup

mozilla.org Documentation Style Guide
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/guidelines

Intra-project (crumbs) navigation should be added and <link rel="..."> inserted
for Site Navigation toolbar.

For fixing this bug, use HandCoder 0.3.4 (with the latest [June 18 2008] HTML Tidy) can be used to "pretty print" the code. Tidy is extremely efficient for 
- removing &nbsp;, <br>, <p></p>, 
- lowercasing elements and attributes, 
- adding optional closing tags,
- converting some deprecated attributes, etc.. and doing this sort of work.

PSPad 4.5.3 build 2298 (also an excellent - maybe even better - choice) can be used to pretty print the code with the latest [June 18 2008] HTML Tidy. 

NotePad++ 5.0 build 20080706 can also be used with the [14 February 2006] HTML Tidy.
(Assignee)

Comment 1

10 years ago
Actually, are these pages even used? I'd prefer we just delete them...
(Reporter)

Comment 2

10 years ago
Samuel,

That is a good question. An excellent question. I think some webpages may be worth keeping... On the other hand, if you or I or someone else would have to spend 5 hours going over every single webpage just to identify and to select those worthy of keeping, then it may not be worth it. 

And on the another hand, if there was a way to run the latest version HTML Tidy on all those webpages, and that would take no more than 120 seconds, then we would process and upgrade all these webpages and then we could just forget about all those webpages.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

10 years ago
We're in the process of archiving a lot of pages. I'd rather just remove them and if someone complains, we can re-create them. I'll look through m.o/newlayout/, but I'm guessing it can all be removed.
(Assignee)

Comment 4

10 years ago
Just looked through the content and did a couple Google searches. Feel free to |cvs remove| the newlayout directory. Don't worry about redirects. Users who get to those pages will see a 404 page that links to the archive site.

If you don't want to do this, let me know and I can.
(Reporter)

Comment 5

10 years ago
Samuel, 

I assume you are replying to me. So, no I can not |cvs remove| the directory. So, please do it. You have my blessing to do this.

Regards, Gérard
(In reply to comment #5)
> So, no I can not |cvs remove| the directory.

Any reason why you can't do it? You should have the necessary privileges.
(Reporter)

Comment 7

10 years ago
Reasons? I use the Doctor interface to make edition changes and that's it. CVS is just too complex, too difficult for me. I read before the CVS how-to files and got lost after 3 parg.
I wish I could do it. I certainly would remove/delete those 3 webpages from bug 345664 comment 70

Cross-Browser DHTML TechNote:
Code Generator for Setting CSS1 Properties from JavaScript
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/css1technote/css1tojs.html

The Ultimate JavaScript Client Sniffer, Version 3.03:
Determining Browser Vendor, Version, and Operating System With JavaScript
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/sniffer/browser_type.html

All CodeStock'99 webpages:
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/codestock99/

Can someone do it after removing the 
http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/ 
of this bug? I sure would appreciate this..

Regards, Gérard
(Assignee)

Comment 8

10 years ago
I'll do this bug.

Gérard, please add pages you think we should remove to http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla.org:Archiving_Suggestions if they aren't already there. (Looks like they are, so if you think of anything else, add it there.)
Assignee: nobody → samuel.sidler
Summary: NGLayout project testcases webpages to meet m.o. guidelines (HTML 4.01 strict valid, markup, style, semantic, etc) → remove the outdated mozilla.org/newlayout
(Assignee)

Comment 9

10 years ago
omg. I just removed soooooo many files.

/me smiles.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(Oh, and for the record, in case anyone finds this bug... these files are still live at www-archive.mozilla.org.)
(Reporter)

Comment 11

10 years ago
> I'll do this bug.

Thank you, Samuel. I greatly appreciate this. 

(Reporter)

Comment 12

10 years ago
"
404: File Not Found

/newlayout/testcases/

We are sorry, the file you requested could not be found.
(...)
This page may be available on the archived version of mozilla.org [http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/]. (...)
"

Marking VERIFIED

Again, thank you Samuel! :)
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Oh, I have migrated some /newlayout/ docs to MDC. I'll remove them too.
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/MDC:Needs_Redirect#Pages_reviewed_by_jorendorff

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: 447924, 447926
Product: mozilla.org → Websites
So...  What happened to setting up redirects?  In particular, dbaron's index of layout documentation (which was NOT out of date, and was a key resource for new layout contributors) seems to have been removed with no redirect set up for it.

In general, what happened to checking with web page owners before removing web pages?
(Reporter)

Comment 15

10 years ago
I can't speak for redirect, cvs removals or dbaron's index of layout documentation.

How do you determine who is page owner? It's not always clear. Also, sometimes the author is no longer reachable, is gone. This can happen often for documents written many years ago, which have not been updated for many years.

FWIW, I still very strongly maintain that the following 3 documents are not just outdated but bad according to today's standards and not worth keeping:

Cross-Browser DHTML TechNote:
Code Generator for Setting CSS1 Properties from JavaScript
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/css1technote/css1tojs.html

The Ultimate JavaScript Client Sniffer, Version 3.03:
Determining Browser Vendor, Version, and Operating System With JavaScript
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/sniffer/browser_type.html

(Commenters in bug 108162 also supports such opinion regarding browser sniffing)

All CodeStock'99 webpages:
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/codestock99/
(this one has been removed and archived: 
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/codestock99/ )
(Reporter)

Comment 16

10 years ago
Yeah... there is something wrong...

I spent a crazy amount of time (hundreds of hours) upgrading each and every single webpages of
http://www.mozilla.org/quality/browser/front-end/testplans/
and
http://www.mozilla.org/quality/browser/front-end/testcases/
in bug 360039 and now they (all, it seems) have been archived in the archived version of mozilla.org.
(Reporter)

Comment 17

10 years ago
Just to help me or others:

Archiving of CodeStock'99 webpages:
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/codestock99/
at
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/codestock99/

is bug 350534
This should be reverted if redirects are not installed; a number of the pages in question were in fact the main documentation on topics in question.  Yes, some were out of date.  But you've broken people's links by moving this off without putting in redirects.

Comment 19

10 years ago
The 404 page for www.mozilla.org points to the archive site for any missing page so people are pointed in the right direction.  We didn't want to automatically have people redirected to the archive site though since we wanted to make it clear that people would be moving from the current site to an older version of the site that is out of date.

For the documentation pages that are still relevant, please give us a list of those URLs and we'll restore them from the archive -- either by adding them back to www.mozilla.org or moving them over to MDC.

Comment 20

10 years ago
Kohei, it looks like you accidentally blanked many pages on MDC, including http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Introduction_to_Layout_in_Mozilla.
> How do you determine who is page owner?

You look at the CVS log, worst case.  As for the rest of your arguments, I can assure you that dbaron is not gone.

David Boswell, asking for that list should happen _before_ you remove documentation wholesale.
Breaking links is very bad.  See http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI .

You just broke any links to the primary list of documentation of layout engine internals.

I've been meaning to write a longer complaint, but I haven't gotten around to it yet; I've been hoping somebody else would.
(In reply to comment #21)
> David Boswell, asking for that list should happen _before_ you remove
> documentation wholesale.

Strongly agreed.

But that's still based on two assumptions:
 * that a single person can necessarily determine what is "still relevant"
 * that deletion is the right thing to do with not "relevant" documentation

I'm skeptical of those assumptions as well.

Comment 24

10 years ago
I apologize for any confusion about this, but let me clarify:

- For a couple of years there has been an ongoing effort to move documentation from www.mozilla.org to developer.mozilla.org.

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/MDC:Existing_Content

- More recently there have been efforts to revive the www.mozilla.org site and the plans have been discussed publicly on newsgroups and blogs and there have been several open meetings to discuss things.  Plans include helping the documentation migration effort as well as archiving obsolete and unowned pages.

- Archived pages can easily be brought back to the site.  We're fine with bringing anything back to the site that anyone requests (or setting up redirects at anyone's request).
(In reply to comment #24)
> - More recently there have been efforts to revive the www.mozilla.org site and
> the plans have been discussed publicly on newsgroups and blogs and there have
> been several open meetings to discuss things.  Plans include helping the
> documentation migration effort as well as archiving obsolete and unowned pages.

I'd seen some of the discussion, although it wasn't clear to me what "archiving" meant.  I recall asking about that at one point.  I still don't see what the point is; it's possible to manage a logical structure even when there's extra historical stuff lying around, and that historical stuff can be moved and redirected if it becomes particularly confusing.  Adding redirects is very easy.

> - Archived pages can easily be brought back to the site.  We're fine with
> bringing anything back to the site that anyone requests (or setting up
> redirects at anyone's request).

Please consider this such a request.
(In reply to comment #24)
> - More recently there have been efforts to revive the www.mozilla.org site and
> the plans have been discussed publicly on newsgroups and blogs and there have
> been several open meetings to discuss things.  Plans include helping the

On what list are these meetings announced?
And in particular, I raised these points in bug 345664 comment 52; nobody ever responded to my question there about what archiving means.
I don't think there's any confusion.  This documentation wasn't migrated.  It was removed.  If it had been migrated (with redirects installed, as they should be for migration), we wouldn't be having this discussion.  But there are no redirects, nor do I see signs of an attempt to set them up.

> We're fine with bringing anything back to the site that anyone requests 

Of course this puts the burden on documentation maintainers to go through the list of things you removed (which you helpfully don't provide), right?

For a start, the entire newlayout/doc tree should be restored.  From a brief skim, so should most of the things linked from newlayout/
I'd also note that having redirects to the archive isn't the only issue; we also need the ability to edit pages in the archive (since you're archiving pages that are actually maintained) and redirect them to somewhere else (so that we don't need to permanently maintain pages in "the archive").  I raised these issues in bug 345664 comment 52.

If the archive doesn't provide these capabilities, then we shouldn't be migrating pages there.

Comment 30

10 years ago
Reopening bug to add back content.  Sam, can you do this when you have a
chance?  Just to note though that this is a short-term fix since any relevant
documentation should be living on MDC and not www.mozilla.org.

Re comment #25, we're archiving things so that people don't get confused by
stumbling across pages that are obsolete (which happens quite frequently on
www.mozilla.org either through doing a search on the site or just by following
links).  Based on feedback to the webmaster address this happens repeatedly
with content related to the 1.x suite, for instance.

Re comment #26, these meetings are announced on mozilla.dev.mozilla-org and
notes from previous meetings are available at

http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla.org:Planning#Planning_Meetings

Re comment #28, I apologize for the confusion.  After ten years or content
growth and with 10,000s of pages on the site and no clear ownership records for
much of that content, there will undoubtedly be some confusion in this process.

Re comment #29, the archive is editable (it's in CVS along with the content on the main site).
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Blocks: 451826
No longer blocks: 451826
Depends on: 451826
These pages were restored.

Comment 33

8 years ago
There was a check-in recently that redirects the main mozilla.org/newlayout page to https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko

With this, I wanted to revisit how to deal with this content.  I'd propose removing this from www.mozilla.org and sending people to the archive site for this information.  There was a problem when we did this earlier because there wasn't an automatic redirect, but there is now.

So, for instance, if we archive it and someone tries to go to the following page that hasn't been substantially updated since 1999, they will automatically go to the archived version which has a prominent notice at the top of the page about this content being out of date.

http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/getinvolved.html

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/getinvolved.html

If there are objections to this, please let me know.

Comment 34

7 years ago
To follow up on this bug, archiving legacy content is now a requirement for being able to move forward with the mozilla.org/.com merge.

If there is no plan to manually migrate this content in the short term, we will go ahead with moving this content off of www.mozilla.org and putting it someplace where you can decide what to do with it on your own schedule.  That may be either the www-archive.mozilla.org site or an archive section of MDN.

Updated

7 years ago
Blocks: 656840

Comment 35

7 years ago
To follow up on comment #33 and #34, I plan to move the remaining pages in mozilla.org/newlayout off of the production site by the end of the week unless there are objections.  

As a reminder, all URLs to the current content will continue to work -- pages that are redirecting now will still redirect and other pages will automatically send people to the relevant pages at www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout.

Comment 36

7 years ago
/newlayout pages archived in r92281.

Note that all existing redirects are still in place and existing URLs will automatically send people to the archive site.  For example:

http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/roadmap.html

goes to

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/roadmap.html

The content is also still available to move over to MDN at any point.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.