I am well aware of the differences between HTML and XHTML.
I choose to switch Haddock's output from HTML to XHTML mostly because I have
found the consistency of rendering cross-browser to be greater and easier to
achieve with XHTML. I'm not alone in this opinion: Many well respected web
design authorities have promoted, and publish their own sites, in XHTML.[1]
Even Microsoft's own developer web site uses it[2]!
Indeed, there is just one kind of validation error in the pages: the ids for
section headings within a page are pure numbers and need an alphabetic prefix.
That said, they work just fine in all browsers. I did fix the very bad
validation problems with other ids (those that link to specific program
symbols), and several other classes of ids. I will push my fix for the
remaining ids and it will appear in the next release.[3,4]
As for extensions and doctypes, I believe that we are following best practices
for the most interoperable result among browsers, and given that we need to
produce output that will be served in a variety of ways including different web
servers, and being browsed directly off the file system.[5]
Of course, as soon as it is viable, I would love to move Haddock's output to
HTML 5. However, given the pace of adoption of such standards, and the range,
age and mix of browsers that readers of Haddock's output use, it is likely to
be two years off.
- Mark
[1] See, for example:
http://www.alistapart.com/
http://www.csszengarden.com/
http://www.quirksmode.org/
http://happycog.com/
http://www.w3.org/
all of which are published as XHTML
[2] See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx
[3] Considerable thought was put into both making identifiers validating, while
maximizing browser interoperability and forward/backward compatibility. See:
http://projects.haskell.org/pipermail/haddock/2010-August/000623.html
[4] Given that the prior Haddock produced pages with much more significant
validation errors and they didn't seem to cause issues, I don't think we should
rush a point fix just for this change.
[5] I can't find any evidence for your assertion that Internet Explorer doesn't
support XHTML, or the way Haddock names the files (and hence URLs).
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
IRC: mtnviewmark
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
