65768 - Update mozilla site to use more W3C standards

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

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

Description

[James Lariviere]

Not sure if this is the right component.

Mozilla is building the most w3 standards compliant browser available. Yet the
mozilla.org site uses none of the benefits of html4/css1/css2.

I propose using a new page layout (3 versions of the front page are attached for
alternate stylesheets [The stylesheets should be external in a real version])
that runs cleaner (less code) and is more up-to-date with the w3 specs without
drastically changing the site layout.  I would be willing to help if the
decision is made to go forward. :-)

Comment 1

[James Lariviere]

Attachment: Mozilla Classic Layout

Comment 2

[James Lariviere]

Attachment: Mozilla Neo Layout

Comment 3

[James Lariviere]

Attachment: Mozilla NightTime Layout

Comment 4

[Mitchell Baker]

James

we've been talking about this very issue as part of the website overhaul
discussions underway in the documentation newsgroup.  We're trying to balance
the desire to get people to contribute documentation vs. the desire to have
standards conformance.  But in any case, we need to improve compliance of
official mozilla.org documents.

I'm cc'ing a couple of people who are closer to the website discussions than I
am for comments.

mitchell


I'm cc'ing 

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This issue is covered in the long term by the proposed move to a Zope-based 
architecture, and an HTML Tidy team working during the migration.

It's covered in the short term, at least in part, by bug 64932 (which has 
patches to make the wrapper standards-compliant), which is awaiting review from 
endico. After that goes in, we can work on individual high-profile pages.

However, James, we'd love to have you on board working on the new version of the 
site. Join netscape.public.mozilla.documentation and read some of the back 
threads to get a view of where we are with that :-)

Gerv

Comment 6

[Jeffrey Baker]

The Bugzilla tools create aweful HTML with <center>, <font>, <table> layouts, et
cetera.  Is it best to hack on them in the 2.x series, or the upcoming 3.x?

Comment 7

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

That's an entirely separate bug, for entirely separate people. And the answer is 
"either, whichever you have time for" ;-)

Gerv

Comment 8

[Jeffrey Baker]

Did anyone try this with some crusty old browsers?  I'm still willing to work on
it, but not if there's a danger of the work being rejected because it doesn't
work properly in IE 2.0.

Comment 9

[timeless]

n1.1n can't deal w/ http1.1, but local copies of all 3 render equivalently -- 
not bad. n2.02 renders pretty much the same.
<The image alt should say mozilla.org, not mozilla.>
my 3.04 doesn't understand http, but it draws a bit more backgrounds, also not 
bad.

I don't have old ie's and they're a pain to maintain.

AOLPress doesn't mind any of the pages.

Comment 10

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Our target is v 4 and above. If it works in older browsers fine, but we don't 
care if it doesn't. It's hard enough supporting Nav4...

Gerv

Comment 11

[Andreas Franke (gone)]

-> [e-mail] component, reassigning.

Comment 12

[James Cox]

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

Comment 13

[Nick Bebout]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 151557 ***

Comment 14

[James Graham]

I disagree - this bug is (IMO) about moving from a table based layout to a css
layout (see any of the attachments) - not about having pages that have the
correct html 4 syntax (which is my interpretation of the other bug). These are
clearly different issues since it is possible to have 'valid' pages that don't
make use of semantically valid html with css to provide layout. Therefore,
unless I have missed the point of the other bug and it does in fact cover all
the issues here, I request that this bug be reopened. If I have missed the point
and the other bug does cover all these issues, then I apologise for the spam.

Comment 15

[Daniel Wang]

an old bug shouldn't be resolved as dupe of a newer bug

Comment 16

[James Graham]

This will be fixed when the beta website http://www.mozilla.org/website-beta/
goes live.

Comment 17

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

Re the last comment: fixed now?  I would but don't have permissions yet.

Comment 18

[Daniel Wang]

wfm now

Comment 19

[James Graham]

<bugspam>Daniel, why wfm rather than fixed? This problem didn't magically go
away as the result of some unrelated checkin, it was certianly a real bug and
now it's been fixed. Why not close it as such.</bugspam>