Bug#1032293: debian-timeline: validation errors in timeline.debian.net
Laura Arjona Reina <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.publicity |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <56a158f9-67bb-c687-4a1f-1fadcc516535__36419.3744187773$1677868785$gmane$org@debian.org> |
Control: retitle -1 Using <!DOCTYPE html> makes timeline empty (only header and footer are displayed) Hello again After researching a bit more, I think that the timeline software is not compatible with HTML5, at least the way it's used by debian-timeline. Similar issue was raised long time ago to upstream project: https://code.google.com/archive/p/simile-widgets/issues/450 with no answer :-/ I think I'll leave this bug here, my HTML/js skills are not enough to try to solve it, and rename it to reflect that the only validation issue left is the HTML5 doctype compatibility. Kind regards El 3/3/23 a las 11:14, Laura Arjona Reina escribió: > Hello again > > I have committed the changes and later removed the DOCTYPE declaration, > and it seems all the validation erros have been gone, except the one > about the DOCTYPE declaration. > > I don't know which DOCTYPE is the best one to use with the timeline. > I've had searched for info in > http://simile-widgets.org/timeline/ > https://github.com/simile-widgets/timeline/ > https://groups.google.com/g/simile-widgets > and I guess we can use <DOCTYPE html> but we would need to make some > adjustments to correctly load the xml files with the events, releases > and release eras. > > I'll continue working on this. > > Kind regards, > > El 3/3/23 a las 9:09, Laura Arjona Reina escribió: >> Package: debian-timeline >> Version: 45 >> Followup-For: Bug #1032293 >> >> Hello, I have tried to fix the validation errors with commit >> 8d6c753ecb6be22915a9c8430b3db50ec1a566a3 (patch attached), but >> deploying it in >> timeline.debian.net resulted in the headers and footers of the page being >> rendered, but not the actual body with the timeline of events (i.e. >> the same >> result than installing the package locally (bugs #1032166 and maybe >> #655664 >> (this time in Firefox too)) . So I guess more fixes are needed. I'll >> try to >> work on this. >> >> Kind regards >> >