With some patches using HTML5 already in the pipeline (Bug 8377) and some useful features already showing broad support (http://caniuse.com/#feat=form-validation, http://caniuse.com/#feat=input-placeholder), I think it's time to show our intention to start using these new features by updating Koha's doctype to an HTML5 one: <!DOCTYPE html> I propose that we do not change our HTML markup guidelines which require that tags be closed, attributes be quoted, etc.
+1
Created attachment 14052 [details] [review] Bug 9265 - Switch to HTML5 doctype in OPAC and staff client This patch replaces the XHTML DOCTYPE with an HTML5 one. The HTML5 validator seems to be significantly different than the XHTML one, so I'm seeing lots of new errors. This patch includes corrections for one: Deprecation of the "language" attribute of <script> tags. To test, view pages in the OPAC and staff client. They should appear as normal. Numerous validation follow-ups will be required, but I suggest these be handled incrementally.
Created attachment 14078 [details] [review] Bug 9265 - Switch to HTML5 doctype in OPAC and staff client This patch replaces the XHTML DOCTYPE with an HTML5 one. The HTML5 validator seems to be significantly different than the XHTML one, so I'm seeing lots of new errors. This patch includes corrections for one: Deprecation of the "language" attribute of <script> tags. To test, view pages in the OPAC and staff client. They should appear as normal. Numerous validation follow-ups will be required, but I suggest these be handled incrementally. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com> test on some intranet pages and I found no regression. (chromium and firefox). The w3c page about the doctype: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#doctype
Created attachment 14925 [details] [review] Bug 9265 - Switch to HTML5 doctype in OPAC and staff client This patch replaces the XHTML DOCTYPE with an HTML5 one. The HTML5 validator seems to be significantly different than the XHTML one, so I'm seeing lots of new errors. This patch includes corrections for one: Deprecation of the "language" attribute of <script> tags. To test, view pages in the OPAC and staff client. They should appear as normal. Numerous validation follow-ups will be required, but I suggest these be handled incrementally. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com> test on some intranet pages and I found no regression. (chromium and firefox). The w3c page about the doctype: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#doctype
Created attachment 14926 [details] [review] Bug 9265 - Switch to HTML5 doctype in OPAC and staff client This patch replaces the XHTML DOCTYPE with an HTML5 one. The HTML5 validator seems to be significantly different than the XHTML one, so I'm seeing lots of new errors. This patch includes corrections for one: Deprecation of the "language" attribute of <script> tags. To test, view pages in the OPAC and staff client. They should appear as normal. Numerous validation follow-ups will be required, but I suggest these be handled incrementally. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com> test on some intranet pages and I found no regression. (chromium and firefox). The w3c page about the doctype: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#doctype Signed-off-by: Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com>
(In reply to comment #5) > Created attachment 14926 [details] [review] > Bug 9265 - Switch to HTML5 doctype in OPAC and staff client > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com> > test on some intranet pages and I found no regression. (chromium and > firefox). > The w3c page about the doctype: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#doctype > > Signed-off-by: Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com> passing QA on this patch tested on firefox, chrome, opera, and safari browers - with no regressions
This patch has been pushed to master. One validation error I noticed on a lot of pages in the OPAC was "Line 454, Column 47: Element script must not have attribute charset unless attribute src is also specified." (the line and column number changed, of course) However, I think this is still a good patch to get in right away.