Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 49
latest updates to bugs/*.html produce ugly layout due to invalid HTML produced by "GENERATOR" CONTENT="StarOffice/5.2 (Win32)"
Last modified: 2007-09-24 00:17:52 UTC
the edits you performed on bug_writing_guidelines.html and issues.html produce invalid HTML resulting in ugly page layout. Even worse, since the HTML is syntactically incorrect, it can and will appear differently in each browser. A particularly "pedantic" HTML parser finds these problems: cd /home/npm/COLLAB.NET/openoffice.org/www/www/bugs/ nsgmls -s -m /usr/local/lib/xemacs/xemacs-packages/etc/psgml//CATALOG /usr/local/lib/xemacs/xemacs-packages/etc/psgml/html.decl bug_writing_guidelines.html nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:53:18:E: there is no attribute "STYLE" nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:80:4:E: document type does not allow element "OL" here; assuming missing "LI" start-tag nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:81:15:E: there is no attribute "STYLE" nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:134:60:E: there is no attribute "STYLE" nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:134:81:E: element "SPAN" undefined nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:158:43:E: element "U" undefined nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:171:95:E: element "SPAN" undefined nsgmls:bug_writing_guidelines.html:175:95:E: element "SPAN" undefined SGML validation exited abnormally with code 1 at Tue Oct 24 15:14:07 ----------------------------------------------------- I have already applied fixes to http://www.openoffice.org/bugs/issues.html so that it is correct HTML is produced again (and it doesn't look all messed up in netscape). I'm requesting similar fixes be done to bug_writing_guidelines.html to correct HTML syntax errors. Alternately, reverting back to my last edit (rev 1.12) will also fix the HTML problems introduced in version 1.13. See http://www.openoffice.org/source/browse/www/www/bugs/bug_writing_guidelines.html for details. Here's my commitlog regarding my changes to bugs/issues.html http://www.openoffice.org/www-cvs/msg03758.html
As I told you in my email, I can't proceed until we have agreed on what kind of HTML editor I'm supposed to use.
Used rev 1.12 and modified it using a plain editor. Looks better now. I did not use a parser to validate that.
to old I close this issue Raphael