[pmwiki-users] Skin authors : Many PmWiki skins fail to validate

Petko Yotov 5ko at 5ko.fr
Mon Apr 6 22:55:10 CDT 2009

On Tuesday 07 April 2009 05:15:43 DaveG wrote:
> Petko Yotov wrote:
> > In that case (same page validates with another skin) the skin uses a
> > wrong DOCTYPE. And could be fixed by using another DOCTYPE.
> Sure -- we could change all skins to use non-strict doctypes. Even then
> though it's possible to invalidate the skin by simply throwing in a
> frameset, or using some markup that causes the doctype to fail.

Please read what I wrote and what you quoted (the part "same page validates 
with another skin"). I don't really care if and how it is possible to throw a 
frameset somewhere.

> > What are the benefits
> > of advertizing that your skin is "XHTML Strict" if the page XHTML is not
> > strictly correct?
> Again, the *skin* might specify the use of XHTML Strict, but page
> authors may choose to use whatever markup they wish -- valid XHTMLStrict
> or otherwise. A skin cannot control that.

Right. So, why should a skin specify XHTML Strict, if PmWiki produces valid 
XHTML Transitional? And when it is *virtually* certain that *any* use of 
*any* wiki tables and *any* forms would be valid XHTML Transitional, but 
invalid XHTML Strict?

> The implication of what you're 
> saying is that all skins must then be defined using non-strict.

XHTML Transitional is among the accepted international standards for web 
pages. I feel we'd better output Standard XHTML Transitional than invalid, 
broken XHTML Strict which obviously will not be "Strict".

> >>> I'll be happy to help authors fix their recipes if they are unable or
> >>> unwilling to do it, or disable on pmwiki.org those demos that fail to
> >>> validate.
> >>
> >> With respect to skins, I think this is a rather ridiculous statement,
> >> given that it is possible for the content of a web page to cause page to
> >> be invalid for a given skin.
> >
> > If another skin, e.g. the default one, produces valid HTML with the same
> > page, then it is possible and the "given" skin should be fixed.
> Again, you seem to be simply ignoring the fact that a page AUTHOR can
> cause validation to fail by using markup not in alignment with the skin
> doctype. So again, we'd have to define all skins to use non-strict -- I
> have no idea what benefit that buys us.

Can a skin AUTHOR write on pmwiki.org "Skin now validates strict XHTML"[1] but 
the page he wrote does not actually validate?[2] If the skin author cannot 
create valid markup in a page he wrote himself, could we safely assume that 
all other wiki users will be able to do it?

Invalid HTML is bad publicity for PmWiki. If MediaWiki, DocuWiki, WordPress 
and other publishing systems are able to produce valid HTML, we should be 
able too. 

And if the *only* requirement is to use a specific International Standard, 
different from HTML2.0, HTML3.2 or XHTML1.1, we probably should.

Again, I didn't say I'll remove recipes that I don't like. I said I'll be 
happy to fix (or disable) the invalid demos on www.pmwiki.org. Visitors will 
always be able to read the recipes, download the files or go to a demo page 
at the author's site. And www.pmwiki.org will validate.


[1] http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/Skittlish
[2] http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/Skittlish-Talk

More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list