http://gcc.gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org

[vargenau]

Hello,

Thank you for maintaining the GCC web pages.
I like the fact that you put a button on the pages so that it
is easy the check the correctness of the HTML code.

Many of your pages are correct, unfortunately, some are not.
For exemple: http://gcc.gnu.org/libstdc++/

I used 
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/
to recursively check your web site.

Regards,

-- 
Marc-Etienne Vargenau http://vargenau.free.fr
Membre du Cercle généalogique norvillois http://www.cgnorvillois.org
Mes données sont indexées sur Généanet http://www.geneanet.org

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Janis Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:54:56PM +0200, vargenau@free.fr wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thank you for maintaining the GCC web pages.
> I like the fact that you put a button on the pages so that it
> is easy the check the correctness of the HTML code.
> 
> Many of your pages are correct, unfortunately, some are not.
> For exemple: http://gcc.gnu.org/libstdc++/
> 
> I used 
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/
> to recursively check your web site.

Thank you for the information.  I wasn't aware of that site, although
we regularly use http://validator.w3.org for individual files.

The GCC web pages that are generated by Texinfo 4.2 do not conform to
XHTML 1.0 Transitional as the pages claim.  The web page maintainers
are discussing how to handle this.

Janis Johnson

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Joe Buck]

> The GCC web pages that are generated by Texinfo 4.2 do not conform to
> XHTML 1.0 Transitional as the pages claim.  The web page maintainers
> are discussing how to handle this.

Option 1: fix texinfo.  If that's out:

They are not XHTML because end tags such as </p> that were formerly
optional in earlier HTML versions are no longer optional.  However,
the pages should validate against earlier HTML DTD's, such as
HTML 4.0 transitional.  So:

Option 2: if the page contains texinfo->html output, mark it as HTML 4.0
transitional instead of as XHTML 1.0 transitional.

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Janis Johnson]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:48:51PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> > The GCC web pages that are generated by Texinfo 4.2 do not conform to
> > XHTML 1.0 Transitional as the pages claim.  The web page maintainers
> > are discussing how to handle this.
> 
> Option 1: fix texinfo.  If that's out:

I sent mail to bug-texinfo@gnu.org but it hasn't shown up on their
archive yet so I don't know if it made it.  I included an example
that showed several problems.

> They are not XHTML because end tags such as </p> that were formerly
> optional in earlier HTML versions are no longer optional.  However,
> the pages should validate against earlier HTML DTD's, such as
> HTML 4.0 transitional.  So:
> 
> Option 2: if the page contains texinfo->html output, mark it as HTML 4.0
> transitional instead of as XHTML 1.0 transitional.

There's at least one problem that prevents validating as HTML 4.0.

Another possibility, perhaps, is to run the processed files through
HTML Tidy, which cleans them up quite nicely.

Janis

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Joe Buck]

[ problems with texinfo -> html output ]

Janis writes:
> Another possibility, perhaps, is to run the processed files through
> HTML Tidy, which cleans them up quite nicely.

Cool.  If it works, and it's easy, it seems like the way to go (at least
until texinfo is fixed).

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[vargenau]

En réponse à Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>:

> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:48:51PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:

> > They are not XHTML because end tags such as </p> that were formerly
> > optional in earlier HTML versions are no longer optional.  However,
> > the pages should validate against earlier HTML DTD's, such as
> > HTML 4.0 transitional.  So:
> > 
> > Option 2: if the page contains texinfo->html output, mark it as HTML
> 4.0
> > transitional instead of as XHTML 1.0 transitional.
> 
> There's at least one problem that prevents validating as HTML 4.0.
> 
> Another possibility, perhaps, is to run the processed files through
> HTML Tidy, which cleans them up quite nicely.

Thank you for answering quickly my initial message.

I tested HTML Tidy on some of your non-validating pages, and yes, it seems
to correct the pages so that they validate.
It solves at least the problems with unclosed constructs and the
unquoted attribute values.

I would suggest to always run HTML Tidy on the pages, even if correct.
With the right options, it gives the pages a nice formatting so that they
are more readable. I always do it on my own pages.

Some pages have additional problems:
- some pages lack the DOCTYPE declaration
- in page cvs.html, there are illegal "<" and ">" characters
- in page libstdc++/ you have a misplaced <a name="download">
- in page onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/chill.html the DOCTYPE should be first
- etc.

Thank you once again to take my remarks into account.

Best regards,

-- 
Marc-Etienne Vargenau http://vargenau.free.fr
Membre du Cercle généalogique norvillois http://www.cgnorvillois.org
Mes données sont indexées sur Généanet http://www.geneanet.org

PATCH for Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 vargenau@free.fr wrote:
> Some pages have additional problems:
> - some pages lack the DOCTYPE declaration

Which ones?  (Please note that those under /onlinedocs are generated
automatically, so unless there is a serious problem, we probably won't
start tweaking them, though of course we'll try to get the tools we have
been using updated.)

> - in page cvs.html, there are illegal "<" and ">" characters

Fixed by the patch below.

> - in page libstdc++/ you have a misplaced <a name="download">

Also fixed by the patch below.

We are now trying to get makeinfo (which we use to generate parts of the
documentation in HTML format) updated to support XHTML, and I have already
started hacking our scripts to add a proper DOCTYPE where we are not fully
XHTML compliant.

Thanks for your comments,
Gerald

Index: cvs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/cvs.html,v
retrieving revision 1.78
diff -u -3 -p -r1.78 cvs.html
--- cvs.html	16 Sep 2002 19:24:45 -0000	1.78
+++ cvs.html	4 Oct 2002 11:52:16 -0000
@@ -178,7 +178,8 @@ you may want to check out include:</p>
   <li>mips-3_4-rewrite-branch: This branch is for largish rewrites to the
       mips backend.  This has a long term goal of no macro instructions and
       updating the port to the current infrastructure.  Send patches to
-      Eric Christopher <<a href="mailto:echristo@redhat.com">echristo@redhat.com</a>> and CC: <<a href="mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org">gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org</a>> for inclusion.</li>
+      Eric Christopher &lt;<a href="mailto:echristo@redhat.com">echristo@redhat.com</a>&gt;
+      and CC: &lt;<a href="mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org">gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org</a>&gt;.</li>
 </ul>
Index: libstdc++/index.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/libstdc++/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -3 -p -r1.26 index.html
--- libstdc++/index.html	15 Jul 2002 20:02:53 -0000	1.26
+++ libstdc++/index.html	4 Oct 2002 12:05:17 -0000
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@

 <hr />

-<a name="download"><h3>Downloading</h3></a>
+<h3><a name="download">Downloading</a></h3>

 <p>Snapshots are located in the GCC FTP area, in the libstdc++ subdirectory,
    <code>&lt;URL:ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/libstdc++/&gt;</code>.  You will
@@ -145,6 +145,7 @@
    out the <code>gcc</code> module will also get the library sources; to
    retrieve only the library, check out the <code>libstdc++-v3</code> module
    instead.
+</p>

 </td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

Re: PATCH for Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[vargenau]

En réponse à Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>:

> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 vargenau@free.fr wrote:
> > Some pages have additional problems:
> > - some pages lack the DOCTYPE declaration
> 
> Which ones?  (Please note that those under /onlinedocs are generated
> automatically, so unless there is a serious problem, we probably won't
> start tweaking them, though of course we'll try to get the tools we
> have
> been using updated.)

As I explained in my inital message, I have used 
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/
to check your pages recursively.
It allows to check a maximum of 100 pages, so my list is not
exhaustive.

http://gcc.gnu.org/testresults/

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-announce/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++-cvs/

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77/News.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Contributors.html

Illegal DOCTYPE
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00822.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/2002-01/msg00551.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2002-01/msg00663.html
 
Best regards,

-- 
Marc-Etienne Vargenau http://vargenau.free.fr
Membre du Cercle généalogique norvillois http://www.cgnorvillois.org
Mes données sont indexées sur Généanet http://www.geneanet.org

Re: PATCH for Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 vargenau@free.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/testresults/

Okay, this is generated externaly and we cannot easily fix that; in
fact, we probably simply should remove it.

> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-announce/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++-cvs/

Fixed manually.

> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77/News.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Contributors.html

Generated automatically using makeinfo, where we are currently in
contact with the maintainer.

> Illegal DOCTYPE
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00822.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/2002-01/msg00551.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2002-01/msg00663.html

I fail to see the problem here. Does it complain because there are
comments before the DOCTYPE or is the DOCTYPE really an invalid/obsolete
one?

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 vargenau@free.fr wrote:

> I would suggest to always run HTML Tidy on the pages, even if correct.
> With the right options, it gives the pages a nice formatting so that they
> are more readable. I always do it on my own pages.

Readability to humans of the HTML source of generated web pages that will
only be read by web browsers hardly seems useful.  It might well make
sense to run it to make the formatting of the source in CVS that is edited
nicer, but there you need to avoid e.g. adding a DOCTYPE since the source
in CVS doesn't include the DOCTYPE, it's added in preprocessing.

> - in page onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/chill.html the DOCTYPE should be first

I don't expect anything to be done about regenerating the older release
manuals (3.0.x and earlier) generated with texi2html because those manuals
weren't adapted for makeinfo --html.  (Though Tidy could be run over the
generated HTML for them, since they're not going to be regenerated later
with more recent tool versions (to keep URLs stable).)  The later (3.1,
3.1.1, 3.2, mainline) manuals can be regenerated with some subsequent
makeinfo version that supports XHTML (since makeinfo --html now uses
stable URLs based on node names).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk