Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Gert · Post by **Gert** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:00 pm

Such a long diskuss for such peanuts ...

We can fix it right now without changing anything else (it's just the template), or wait for 1.5.2, that also should not to be a problem.

I think, it's time for:

Code: Select all

<!DOCTYPE html>

Gert

cmb · Post by **cmb** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:35 pm

Hi Gert,

Gert wrote:We can fix it right now without changing anything else (it's just the template), or wait for 1.5.2, that also should not to be a problem.

Yes, of course, we could also wait for 1.5.2.

Gert wrote:I think, it's time for:
Code: Select all
<!DOCTYPE html>

IMO it's better to give plugin developers some time to adjust their plugins. There are several elements and attributes that were perfectly valid under the former transitional variants, but are not allowed in HTML 5. And I'm expecting problems with at least some browsers (IE). Finally it might be better to wait for the standardization of HTML5.

Christoph

Gert · Post by **Gert** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:37 pm

cmb wrote:And I'm expecting problems with at least some browsers (IE).

cmsimple-xh.de and cmsimple-xh.com are using <!DOCTYPE html> from beginning, no problems in IE6 ...

joomla.de: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ne&group=0

typo3.org: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ne&group=0

wordpress.com: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ne&group=0

redaxo.org: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ne&group=0

cmsmadesimple.org: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ne&group=0

================================

cmsimple-xh.de: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ator%2F1.2

cmsimple-xh.com: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ator%2F1.2

we are ready for the future

Gert

cmb · Post by **cmb** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:24 am

Hello Gert,

a very interesting comparison! I'm particularly astonished, that http://typo3.org/ uses HTML 4.0

AFAIK nobody else does.

But regarding HTML5: http://cmsimple-xh.com/ doesn't use too many plugins, so I'm still not convinced, that we should move to HTML5 too soon.

And another thought: IMO the doctype should be set from the core, and not from the template. I've seen many templates which declare doctypes without respecting $cf['xhtml']['endtags'], or even worse using strict doctypes (doesn't allow iframes for example) or simply wrong ones. I'm quite aware, that changing this would break the compatibility with existing templates, so we should better stick with the convention, that the template declares the doctype -- but it would have been better, if it was solved the other way from the beginning.

Christoph

PS:

Gert wrote:we are ready for the future

But is the future ready for us?

Gert · Post by **Gert** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:42 am

cmb wrote:And another thought: IMO the doctype should be set from the core, and not from the template.

There are templates available, there you can set every doctype you want - the site will not validate, even without using plugins

And we should not wait until the last plugin developer brings his plugins up to date, or the last template Designer his templates. We should go ahead and set the standards for CMSimple_XH.

No one have to use the default template, but it should be modern and future-oriented, and html5 is the future at the moment.

cmb wrote:But is the future ready for us?

The future - indeed, the present - I'm not sure

Gert

cmb · Post by **cmb** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:08 am

Hi Gert,

Gert wrote:html5 is the future at the moment

Yes, HTML5 is the future -- but is it already the presence?

This afternoon I've had a glimpse on http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/, and I'm not sure, if CMSimple_XH is ready for the move to HTML5 yet. Well, the HTML5 draft offers quite some room for catering with downward compatibility, but IMO we should take some time to evaluate the situation. I'm willing to spend some hours on this issue over the weekend. So please be patient, and wait until I've made my mind about it. (And perhaps the latest posts in this topic should be moved to "Open Development", so others could give their opinion too.)

And of course, we shouldn't make the switch to HTML5 today, as it's Friday, 13th!

Christoph

Gert · Post by **Gert** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:00 am

cmb wrote:And of course, we shouldn't make the switch to HTML5 today, as it's Friday, 13th!

Of course you are right

cmb wrote:and I'm not sure, if CMSimple_XH is ready for the move to HTML5 yet.

Not CMSimple_XH, just the template. CMSimple_XH is ready for html5.

The doctype is not a problem for the browsers, they can display a website even if there is no doctype. The doctype is a problem for the validators only. It's just a declaration.

The only problem for browsers could be the usage of html5 features, but the cmsimple-xh template does not use such syntax. At the moment it's no problem to write html 4.01 or xhtml 1.0 (strict variants) and declare html5, in the most cases it will validate, and no browser will have any problem.

And maybe, the validation of plugins is better under html5, if there is written mixed html / xhtml in the code.

We can move the validation links to the backend, so the visitor will not be bothered, and the operator of the website can check his work and decide, if he wants to ignore some crazy error messages and warnings. That anyway is recommendable for html5 templates, because html5 will be an open standard and changing without versions.

However, I will do it, today, Friday, 13th, for my TemPlug_XH templates

Gert

cmb · Post by **cmb** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:33 am

Hello Gert,

Gert wrote:The doctype is not a problem for the browsers, they can display a website even if there is no doctype.

Well, they can display a website, but often what they display with or without doctype is not the same, because without doctype at least IE (I'm not sure about other browsers) will switch to quirksmode.

Gert wrote:And maybe, the validation of plugins is better under html5, if there is written mixed html / xhtml in the code.

I doubt that as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html5 wrote: Although HTML5 now defines a consistent behavior for "tag soup" documents, those documents are not regarded as conforming to the HTML5 standard.

Christoph

Gert · Post by **Gert** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:09 pm

cmb wrote:because without doctype at least IE (I'm not sure about other browsers) will switch to quirksmode.

My templates are also looking nice in quirksmode.

And Mikeys also

Other template designers may set the docktype of their choice, I will set the html5 doctype in the future,

Gert

PS: If nobody wants, the CMSimple_XH standard template may have the old dynamic generated doctype, of course.

Holger · Post by **Holger** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:27 pm

Hmm, you'll stick on the not yet released html5, but don't want to introduce PHP5 (Released in July 2004).
Sometimes I can't follow...

Holger

CMSimple_XH–Forum

Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1

Re: Minor bug in default template XH 1.5.1