On Thursday, June 2, 2022 2:50:55 PM EDT Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jason Yundt <jason@jasonyundt.email> writes:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gitweb: switch to an XHTML5 DOCTYPE
> >
> > According to the HTML Standard FAQ:
> > “What is the DOCTYPE for modern HTML documents?
> >
> > ...
> > Compared to the first version of this patch, this version:
> > 1. makes it clear that XML parsers may used the linked DTD like brian
> >
> > mentioned.
> >
> > 2. mentions HTML5 like Bagas suggested.
>
> So, is it XHTML5, or HTML5, we want to see on the title?
I chose XHTML5 since I didn’t think that it was accurate to say “HTML5
DOCTYPE”. The DOCTYPE that this patch uses is valid in the XML syntax, but not
the HTML syntax.
> > +proper_doctype() {
> > + gitweb_run "$@" &&
> > + grep -F "<!DOCTYPE html [" gitweb.body &&
> > + grep "<!ENTITY nbsp" gitweb.body &&
> > + grep "<!ENTITY sdot" gitweb.body
> > +}
>
> Hmph, this test does not care what other cruft appears in the file,
> does not care in what order the three lines that match the patterns
> appear, and the second and third patterns are even allowed to match
> the same line. I think that is OK (we do not even mind if the two
> ENTITY definitions get squashed on the same line).
While I was writing this patch, I was thinking something similar. Grep is not
a good tool for validating (X)HTML. I thought about creating a test that uses
the Nu Html Checker [1] to validate pages that Gitweb generates, but I decided
that that should be the topic of a separate patch.
> > +test_expect_success 'Proper DOCTYPE with entity declarations' '
> > + proper_doctype &&
> > + proper_doctype "p=.git" &&
> > + proper_doctype "p=.git;a=log" &&
> > + proper_doctype "p=.git;a=tree"
> > +'
>
> As far as I can tell, git_header_html() is the only helper that
> deals with DOCTYPE, and responses to any request must call
> git_header_html() to produce the header (or the handler for a
> particular request type is buggy), but I do not think it is part of
> this topic's job to ensure that all request handlers call the
> git_header_html(). So we _could_ do with just a single test without
> trying different request types if we wanted to, as long as there are
> existing tests that make sure everybody uses git_header_html().
>
> Was there a particular reason why these four requests were chosen?
> Do they have different entry points and show the doctype from
> different codepath?
Not really. When I created a262585d81 (gitweb: remove invalid http-
equiv="content-type", 2022-03-08), I chose those requests by running git
instaweb and then clicking on the first four links I saw. For this patch, I
just copied what I had done previously. I don’t know if they use different
codepaths (I don’t understand Perl very well).
> Thanks.
[1]: <https://validator.w3.org/nu/>
