Nis Martensen wrote: > It probably is. I only saw the results and thought it would be easiest > to fix here. (At least as long as firefox shows this behaviour.) > > In fact, it seems to depend on whether the document is served as > text/html or text/xhtml+xml.
Right, I see. Ideally ikiwiki would output .xhtml files, and web servers would serve them as text/xhtml+xml. However, in practice many web servers don't properly support .xhtml files. My own laptop's web server was misconfigured to not look for index.xhtml files, and once I fixed that, it served them up as application/xhtml+xml, which fails miserably in both epiphany and w3m. Despite some specs seeming to say application/xhtml+xml is the correct type for xhtml. It seems like ikiwiki is stuck with outputing .html, at least by default. This means that it does need to deal with all these text/html compatability issues described in appendix C of the xhtml spec. And based on the mozilla bug, it seems I misread the spec and it's really saying I need to use <a></a>. > Is an XHTML doctype (as it is used here) required for ikiwiki or does the > template mechanism also work with HTML4 templates? <a></a> should work > with both. Ikiwiki can really only sanely support one of xhtml or html, and I chose xhtml (perhaps unwisely?). If you change the templates to use a html doctype, you will run into issues with <br /> not being valid html 4, and will need to change several bits of code in ikiwiki to get around them. It would be possible to add a configuration flag to ikiwiki to make it output html 4 instead of xhtml. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
