RFC: doc/www cleanup

[Gabor Kovesdan]

On 2012.08.03. 18:30, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> I can think of two reasons:
>> >(1) It is the trivial and straight way to go to XHTML for now. HTML5 would
>> >be a bigger jump that should be tested more carefully. The current plan is
>> >to do the migration in several phases for better QA. For example, for now we
>> >are only going to DocBook 4.2/XML, which can still be used with Jade and
>> >DocBook DSSSL. Going to full XML-based standards and newer DocBook version
>> >will be a next step that requires more testing.
> It is harder to move to XHTML than it is to move to HTML5.
>
Could you elaborate this more?

One issue with HTML5 is that we still want offline validation (not just 
well-formedness check) and there's no official schema. We have to write 
one or find one that is already written by someone and is reliable 
enough. Secondly, HTML5 isn't used widely yet and it would be nice to 
really be able to evaluate its usage for our docs in spite of all of its 
"awesomeness".

In general, please consider that we have a really ancient technology set 
in use at the moment and we cannot risk big jumps by suddenly replacing 
everything. We have to catch up now with the upgrades that haven't done 
for a long time. I'm not against using UTF-8 and HTML5 and thorough 
testing and QA are important factors.

I think something like this is a realistic upgrade path:

1, DocBook 4.2/XML, DocBook DSSSL, OpenJade, XHTML 1.0  --> currently in 
progress
2, DocBook 4.5/XML, DocBook XSL, xsltproc, xmlroff, HTML5  --> need to 
evaluate xmlroff for PDF and HTML5
3, DocBook 5.0/XML, DocBook XSL, xsltproc, xmlroff, HTML5, UTF-8 --> 
need to evaluate UTF-8 support

Gabor