W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: including ruby in an xhtml 1 transitional doc

From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:40:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3D23370B.F810F853@i18nGuy.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: www-international@w3.org

Chris,
thanks for the reply.
Sure, shoot me the file. A couple comments below-
tex

Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, 9:24:37 AM, Tex wrote:
> 
> TT> What is the proper way to add ruby to a 1.0 transitional doc,
> 
> aha, you refer to 'transitional' vs 'strict'. Yes, transitional is
> being phased out. There is little presentational gloss remaining in
> transitional that you can't do (better) with CSS.

ok. Maybe I missed it, but a clear indication not to pursue the approach
would save time.
Also, based  on my (limited) experience with browsers, not all CSS
features are supported or supported the same way, which is why I wanted
to maintain some of the older usages.

> 
> TT>  or
> TT> alternatively to
> TT> have a 1.1. doc that accepts the older html markup?
> 
> TT> The page in question is:
> TT> http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/unicode-example-ruby.html
> 
> That file is not even well formed. So since its not XML, its not XHTML
> 1.0.

Prior to adding Ruby, it had passed the W3 validator.
(Unless I messed it up adding Ruby...)

 
> Six edits (missing spaces between attributes, missing quotes around
> attribute values) made it well formed.
> 
> It was then invalid, because of the ruby, as you note.
> 
> Altering the doctype to XHTML 1.1 strict showed a couple of errors -
> use of the lang attribute (easily fixed by deletion, xml:lang was
> already there, or by search and replace to xml:lang if not).
> 
> Then there was the ultra-simple presentational stuff
> 
> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFED" link="#0000EE"
> vlink="#551A8B" alink="#FF0000">
> 
> totally simple to replace in less than a minute. You already had a
> link to a stylesheet anyway. And some gratuitous use of center tags,
> again not needed because class="ctr" looks like there is styling
> applied ... and some bare text not inside paragraphs a couple of
> places ... and use of the name attribute instead of the id attribute
> for link destinations.

The gratuitous centers were there because some browsers did not center
the items otherwise.

> 
> Thats it. 7 minutes elapsed time (including blow by blow commentary
> email), valid XHTML 1.1 strict document. XML Spy is wonderful ;-)
> 
> Should I mail it to you?

Yes please. I'll try it out with a few browsers.

tex

> 
> --
>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 13:40:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:59 GMT