Re: [hypermail] XHTMLized hypermail available for testing

From: Jose Kahan <>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:38:58 +0200
Message-ID: <>


Thanks for your confirmation.

I did some additional tests with more mailboxes. The convertion to XHTML has some effects, because we're trying to produce valid dcouments:

  1. The <u> (underline) element is deprecated. We were only using it in the tables. I removed it.
  2. winlatin1 charset. This is a bit more complex. I've some messages that have an ISO-8859-1 charset. However, they include some characters that come from a Windows codepage. This makes them invalid. The solution here is to convert the winlatin1 characters into Unicode ones, when found. This will require a convertion table and examining all the characters. Something akin to the entity and smart link convertions we do already. I've not yet written this code but hope to do this afternoon (we already did it in Amaya).

   On the other hand, many browsers don't care about the charset    and would open and display it anyway, with the good glyphs. The    problem is when browsers parse the document through an XML parser.    The parser will complain and stop when reaching that character.

   Well, there is a solution and it's compatible with all the browsers    I know. So let's do the char translation here.

3) Invalid HTML attachments or alternatives.

   Let me say it right away. The HTML markup that's being produced by    mail clients or web forms is rarely valid. Just including their    content to show it in-line produces invalid documents. Some cases    are:

    The attachment defines a <head>, <dtd> or other things that can     only occur once in a valid document and which are already defined     by the markup that hypermail produced before including the body.

    The attachment is written in HTML and we can't include it anymore     using XHTML because it has deprecated elements, or the tags are in     upper case (XHTML requires them to be in lower case).

    The markup is invalid.

   There are some solutions we can take here. I need your feedback    and opinion to know which one is best:

  1. Stop doing the inline display of HTML attachments. Store them in the attachment directory and add a link to them. Include a new customization option so that the maintainer authorizes inline display of HTML, even if it produces invalid XHTML.
  2. Give more priority to the plaintext alternatives rather than the first alternative. We can add an option saying how to interpret the priority of alternatives.
  3. If the body of the message is only given in HTML, then store it in the attachment directory and add a link. Add an option saying wheter we want to do this or not.

I will wait until we discuss this invalid HTML in messages to code a solution. This only affects us when we want to show valid XHTML (which I think should be our goal). And there is a backwards compatibility with HTML anyway.

Is it Ok to go ahead with my commit for XHTML regardless of the points I stated here above?

Thanks for your feedback,

-jose Received on Wed 02 Apr 2003 01:43:59 PM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat 13 Mar 2010 03:46:12 AM GMT GMT