On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
It's because the underlying documentation is HTML and we don't really try to convert it or it's invalid XHTML and we don't do anything to fix it. Fixing this is a fairly large job, and far down on the priorities.
I'd like to second Daniel on this. Right now we are holding documentation generation together with duct tape. It took much behind the scenes work by Daniel, me, Eric Niebler, Rene, and others to get the release out. We need to smooth all that out before worrying about XHTML.
If we don't care whether the documentation format validates correctly, we should not advertise it as XHTML-conformant, and we should instruct documentation writers to not include any conformance claims in their HTML. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode