Henri Sivonen wrote: > > | Use <a name="anchor-name">. Linking to an ID isn't supported > | in many browsers. Also, anchors should, like filenames, be > | lower case. > > Links to ids works just fine in contemporary browsers (including > Mozilla). Do we really want *require* '<a name="anchor-name">' cruft in > docs aimed at people who are supposed to be using primarily Mozilla (eg. > in Mozilla developer docs)?
If we're dropping support for such a basic thing as linking, it has to be approved by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd been using NS4 as my main browser until fairly recently, and it was annoying and even *confusing* to encounter pages that used id linking. I don't believe it's worth that cost. > More often in practice such anchors get styled as links which isn't cool > at all. Depends on the style sheet in use, of course. That won't be a problem. :) > | Use Latin1. Don't... > > Suggested replacement: > ... Changed. > | All tags and attributes in lowercase. We may decide to switch to > | XML in the future, so get in the habit. > > s/XML/XHTML/ > XML doesn't require lower case. It just requires case-sensitivity. right. Changed. > I'm not sure that is a good requirement. The mozilla.org HTML content > would require programmatic processing anyway if the switch to XHTML was > made. OpenOffice.org Writer/Web for one emits upper case tags, and I > don't see why documentation authors should bother to change the tags to > lower case. The other argument for this is consistency in coding style, and that was the original reason I put it in. Do you want me to remove this? > | You are encouraged to use our Templates, which have been > | designed with this in mind. > > Are those available outside Zope? They have nothing to do with Zope, but they don't exist just yet. > | Don't depend on any particular presentation for a tag or class. > > s/tag/element/ ok > | The style attribute is banned from mozilla.org pages with > | two exceptions: float and clear. > > What's the rationale behind the exceptions? They're highly context-sensitive, and I don't want to force <img class="floatleft" ...> or <div class="clear"> on people, since it's little better than style="...". What I mean by that is, for example, whether and how a designer wants an image floated often depends on factors that can't be expressed by CSS -- and a heaping spoonful of subjectivity. Whether the image's width takes up x% of the most common resolution's page width or less, whether it's height is less than this or more than that, whether the last image was floated right or left, whether these consecutive images and their texts are presenting parallel information, etc. > | Pages must look decent in NS4+, MSIE4+, and Mozilla. Try to > | avoid exposing bugs in their CSS support; at the very least, > | make the page legible. A very useful resource is Eric Meyer's > | Master Compatibility Chart. If you must, block a problem > | browser from accessing your style sheet�but try to do it > | without scripting, ok? For example, @import a style sheet > | NS4.x shouldn't see. > > Suggested replacement: > Pages intended for people who aren't yet using Mozilla must be legible > in Netscape 4.x. Is this sufficient? Pages must look decent in NS4+, MSIE4+, and Mozilla. At the very least, they must be legible. If necessary, block a problem browser from accessing your style sheet. For example, @import a style sheet NS4.x shouldn't see. ~fantasai
