Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:45 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 13396 - MediaWiki ouput XHTML 1.1 instead of 1.0 Transitional
MediaWiki ouput XHTML 1.1 instead of 1.0 Transitional
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Parser (Other open bugs)
All All
: Lowest enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-03-16 19:25 UTC by Oldak Quill
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description Oldak Quill 2008-03-16 19:25:44 UTC
XHTML 1.1 is the most recent XHTML recommendation by the W3C. It follows from XTHML 1.0 Strict and, like 1.0 Strict, doesn't support HTML presentational elements (<center>, <u>, <strike>, and <applet>), which  1.0 Transitional did support. 1.1 also drops support for some lang and anchor name attributes.

Shouldn't MediaWiki move away from the Transitional DTD to something more conformant? The main difference between 1.0 Transitional and 1.1 is strict separation of presentation and structure.
Comment 1 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2008-03-16 19:31:05 UTC
Per my recollection of previous comments by Brion in various places, which I agree with, MediaWiki will not move to a Strict DTD at any time in the foreseeable future.  While we work to minimize the amount of inline style and otherwise separate presentation and structure, XHTML Strict takes this to an unreasonable extreme by removing useful elements such as <i> and <b> that would realistically have to be replaced by <span class="italic"> and similar (since in many cases bold/italics do *not* indicate emphasis of any kind).  There is, on the other hand, absolutely no advantage to switching other than if you're a standards junkie: no new functionality will be made possible, it will be wasted effort.  Something like HTML 5 is much more interesting to look forward to switching to.
Comment 2 Oldak Quill 2008-03-16 19:44:19 UTC
Wouldn't keeping a stricter separation between presentation and structure (inc. <span class="italic"> instead of <i>) make MediaWiki more flexible in serving to mobile devices? Also, wouldn't replacing <i>, <b>, &c. with span classes make styling more flexible for the user? 
Comment 3 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2008-03-16 19:48:46 UTC
Um, no.  How?  If <i> is mapped exactly to <span class="italic">, they work the same as far as flexibility and styling.  Just replace all "i"'s in selectors, etc. with "span.italic", or vice versa.  They're identical.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.