Mark Allan wrote:
When you specify XHTML for "all web documents generated by core components of the DNN application", what implications does this have for third-party skins? If skins have to be XHTML, I'm concerned about what happens as HTML 5 gains more traction (there are already HTML 5 skins about!). If not, then you really have to go with strict XHTML, as it's the only thing that'll validate under all the usual DOCTYPEs and you ideally want to make sure that core components never cause a validation failure.
If it was my choice, I'd bite the bullet and go for HTML 5 now, on the understanding that it would be written to degrade gracefully, but I can understand that it might be a bit overzealous when the standard's not nailed down!
P.S. Nerdy proofreader note - the DOCTYPE declaration above is wrong, you need to update it ;)
First, thanks for pointing out the error in the DOCTYPE... As I was working on this section of the document I waffled back and forth between specifying XHTML and HTML and (as you can probably surmise) I forgot to update the DOCTYPE when I finally settled on XHTML. I've corrected it here and in the original document too.
Now, let me answer this question: When you specify XHTML for "all web documents generated by core components of the DNN application", what implications does this have for third-party skins?
The quick answer is "It doesn't have any implications."
The long answer is that this document is primarily intended to the guidelines for code and design that will be shipped as part of an official DNN package. In other words, going forward, any new or updated controls, modules, etc. that produce output and any skins that are shipped with the Core or Professional package must adhere to the guidelines. The guidelines will be available for third-parties to consider and DNN Corp (and the Community Experience Team of course) will evangelize it to them under the argument that anyone contributing modules, controls, or skins to the DNN Ecosystem that adhere to these guidelines will render output that is consistent with the existing DNN code base. We can't stop them from deviating from the guidelines, and there will be situations where there is a compelling need to deviate (for example, needing to use the "autocomplete=off" setting for form fields for financial and e-commerce modules).
As for HTML 5 - one major advantage of HTML 5 is that it backwards compatible with XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1. Since any output conforming to those standards will validate in HTML 5, any skin designer who decides to implement a skin with an HTML 5 doctype can be confident that new and updated core modules and controls will render valid output. Eventually, once HTML 5 becomes an actual recommendation, the style guide and the distributed skins will be updated accordingly.
I hope that explains the intent of this document a little better and assuages any fears you had with respect to skins moving forward towards HTML 5. :D
:-j(enni)