#20935: ePub documentation not valid
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
     Reporter:  mabdullah            |                    Owner:  Fredrik
                                     |  Malmfors
         Type:  Bug                  |                   Status:  assigned
    Component:  Documentation        |                  Version:  master
     Severity:  Normal               |               Resolution:
     Keywords:                       |             Triage Stage:  Accepted
    Has patch:  1                    |      Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0                    |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0                    |                    UI/UX:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by Carlton Gibson):

 Hi Fredrik.

 > That Easy pickings box is an insult to your awesome work :-)

 Absolutely. Great work. (I ticked ''Easy pickings...'' since I thought it
 an accessible ticket, for someone prepared to do a bit of investigating —
 perhaps we need a re-name, anyhow...)

 **TOC depth**: Whilst iBooks is popular, I'm reluctant to settle for
 `epub_tocdepth = 2` — it seems like something an ebook reader should
 handle better. (Perhaps we could create a separate version... Or we may
 have to fold in the end... — Let's leave this one for just now.)


 **SVG**: I don't think we can just delete the `DOCTYPE`. As far as I can
 tell, browsers support SVG 1.1, rather than 2.0.

 * https://caniuse.com/#feat=svg
 * https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
 US/docs/Web/SVG/SVG_2_support_in_Mozilla

 Removing the doctype let's the validation pass **as XML**, but that
 doesn't thereby make them valid SVG. Take one of the errors:

 `<g id="Canevas_1: Calque 1">`

 An `id` attribute cannot be multiple tokens, and `1` can't be a valid
 `id`. This isn't correct because we remove the doctype, even though it's
 valid XML.

 I've pinged Omni again. I was hoping for a quick fix, but it might be
 that's not happening, in which case a few manual edits might be needed
 here (but probably aren't essential/the best use of human time).



 I'll merge the other two commits from your PR as `Refs <THIS TICKET>...`,
 then we can look at if there are any other changes we can make (you have a
 few points not yet addressed).

 Beyond that, it looks like we're waiting for Sphinx to update, so we might
 be able to close this one (taking any last danglers as separate tickets)?

 Thanks for the super investigation work! And Welcome Aboard ⛵️

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20935#comment:17>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/067.4c89d2bf0c78c74e926d6f9cf54f169a%40djangoproject.com.

Reply via email to