X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFE2D1B545 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:08:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51373-08 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:07:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from salem.vale-housing.co.uk (mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk [80.176.1.146]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C9AD1B51E for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:07:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from vale-housing.co.uk ([192.168.1.89] RDNS failed) by salem.vale-housing.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:07:41 +0000 Received: from tartanic.demon.co.uk ([80.177.99.193]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user dpage) by ssl.vale-housing.co.uk with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:07:41 -0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <50141.80.177.99.193.1068487661.squirrel@ssl.vale-housing.co.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:07:41 -0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: CSS and XHTML From: "Dave Page" To: In-Reply-To: <22625006-1396-11D8-A04E-0005029FC1A7@myrealbox.com> References: <20031109164601.1629.qmail@osiris.gamecrashnet.de> <22625006-1396-11D8-A04E-0005029FC1A7@myrealbox.com> X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Cc: X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2003 18:07:41.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[8877AF10:01C3A7B5] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/124 X-Sequence-Number: 2771 It's rumoured that Michael Glaesemann once said: > Hello all! > > On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 01:46 AM, Andreas Grabmüller wrote: > >> You can find some stats at >> http://www.postgresql.org/stats/ > > Thanks for the stats. I noticed that the Report Magic analysis dates > from March. Is there anything more recent? Or might not it matter? March is when the first version of the new site went live on the new server we setup. >> I think it would be good to have a XHTML compatible site. But as it >> seems the site structure will change (if we decide to merge the >> sites), it might be better if you wait for this new structure before >> redoing the (X)HTML to avoid double work... > > I'm all for avoiding double work. When is a decision to be made on > merging sites? With the merge, will there by a style redesign as well? It's not so much when we merge, but when we transition. At some point, onece we're happy with Andreas' new framework & style, we will move to it. Incidently, unless Andreas objects, I see no reason why you cannot submit patches for the new code to get it up to xhtml strict if you like (though I have to wonder if we would have to use transitional - for example, iirc there is no nowrap in strict). Regards, Dave.