The mainpage (http://www.gentoo.org/index.xml) isn't W3C-compliant and all
links on it neither. Mostly one-liners so this should be easy to fix. The
documentation-pages however have more incompliant lines. Compliancy can be
checked on http://validator.w3.org Maybe some kind of QA-tool should check
W3C-compliancy before commiting to CVS.
I'm sorry if this is against Gentoo-policy but I'm re-assigning this bug to
firstname.lastname@example.org because it seems that Sherman Boyd
(email@example.com) isn't (temporarily) active on the website/documentation.
actually this is no small fix.
the site is generated on the fly from XML, this is a known issue that I am
working on and I intend it to be part of the redesign, the stylesheets will have
to be majorly overhauld if not redone to fix thins. however this is a priority
thank you for noticing tho :)
*** Bug 13902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Well, the valign/align-mixup is easy to fix and would make our start-page valid.
Should i fix them in CVS or are there any reasons why I shouldn't do so? (Never
did something on the web-pages, so I don't know how this system works exactly)
I don't know if you've seen it from KDE 3.0.1 ( Slackware 8, or is it 8.1..hmm ), but the install-instructions are paragraph-on-single-line, so ALL reading is side-scrolling...
Just on a lark, I tried viewing it in mozilla 1.2.1, and mozilla compensates, so maybe you don't see how utterly broken the user's view can be, from within your browsers...
( the times web-sites looked super-wrong on some version of KDE's Konq when no-body else noticed... )
this's only a FYI, eh?
W3C-compliancy is something we strive for, but do not require 100% adherence to. Being W3C compliant is one of many aspects that we consider when creating new web pages and designs.
marking as wontfix simply because achieving W3C compliancy will be an ongoing, rathre than a concerted effort. Thus, we are not saying that we *will not* be W3C compliant -- merely that it will be a gradual effort over time.