Tracking for upgrading mozilla-central src HTML pages to compliant XHTML

VERIFIED WONTFIX

Status

--
minor
VERIFIED WONTFIX
10 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: Tyler, Unassigned)

Tracking

Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Reporter)

Description

10 years ago
In the mozilla-central, almost all of the html readmes, and other HTML docs do not comply with the XHTML specification. Some are so archaic they were written with Frontpage 4, and don't have a DOCTYPE. I am willing to work on converting these pages over to the XHTML specs. Also, not sure if this is core or firefox. This will end up being a meta tracker if approved.
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: 467605
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Component: General → Tracking
Product: Firefox → Core
QA Contact: general → chofmann
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: 467607
(Reporter)

Comment 1

10 years ago
Personally, i feel this is important for future proofing our docs, and showing everyone ho looks through our code that we really do practice good XHTML coding, and not just preach and encourage it.
Who's preaching or encouraging "good XHTML coding"? I don't really see the benefit to doing this.
No longer depends on: 467607
(Reporter)

Comment 3

10 years ago
Maybe "preaching" was not the best word too use. What I mean to say is that it is always good practice to code HTML file that are compliant with XHTML, or some such W3C standard. And many of the HTML files that are in the mozilla-central source are very poorly formed, and are not compliant with mid-90s standards. Granted, not many people see these, only those who are downloading the source, usually, but it is always good to keep HTML well formed.

Look at it this way. 5-8 years from now, these files are still getting older and more obsolete. How will it look in 2012, when mozilla files are not standards compliant.

It is easy to upgraed these to XHTML 1, right now, but it will get harder when XHTML 2 rolls around.

I am willing to do this, so it will not be a big deal for any one else, except to review and checkin. There is no hurry, this does not need to be done by any specific release, it just seems like a good practice thing to do, and something that would help future proof the help HTML docs and readmes, etc. in the source.
Depends on: 467607
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: 467696
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: 467698
I don't think using XHTML instead of HTML actually future-proofs the documents, since browser implementations are just as unlikely to break HTML backward compatibility than they are to break XHTML backwards compat (perhaps even more so). Even if future browsers did somehow "break" the documents, they're just ASCII, and we can do the work to "upgrade" them then.

It just seems like a lot of churn with essentially no practical benefit.
(Reporter)

Comment 5

10 years ago
Well, if you think that this is not something that could be done now, I guess it could be put off. I could not see any thing against doing this, and potential saved work down the line. But, I am willing for other opinions.
(Reporter)

Comment 6

10 years ago
It seems more appropriate to move these docs to devmo, or whatever online site they live at. (Some already are). Bug 471144 addresses that.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(Reporter)

Updated

10 years ago
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
(Assignee)

Updated

2 years ago
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.