Hi Dan,

I also noticed this, and had a peak at the source, it also seems to be missing a doctype?

Definitely a good idea for starter kits to validate to ensure new users start off on the right track, I think it's a great idea btw!

Cheers,

Chris

Fair point Chris - in my defense, it was 5pm on Friday and I had the pub in my horizon so I rushed to get it out!

The doctype is a valid html5 doctype, which puts all browsers from IE6+ into standards mode and so is "ready to use", even though html5 is still in draft stages.

I should be able to get some time today to push out a fix for these.

Dan

Hi Dan,

I totally understand about the 5pm Friday afternoon pub calling :)

I had not realised the doc types definition has changed in HTML5, so thanks for pointing that out to me :)

Cheers,

Chris

Out of interest what is your rational behind using HTML5?

I keep on spending alot of time looking into HTML5, maybe I'm missing a point but until xHTML5 is supported widely it seems a bit daft?

Thanks, Lau

p.s the calendar function is very neat! :)

Hi Lau

Xhtml2 was next on the cards, but looks like that is dead in the water already.

• http://www.zeldman.com/2009/07/02/xhtml-wtf/)
• http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2009/goodbye-xhtml-2/

and html5 is the "next html4", not the "next xhtml 1.0 or 1.1"

xhtml5 (an xml serialisation of html5) may come eventually, but it may be a requirement that to be valid it must be served with an xml mime type - which will cause quirksmode in legacy browsers (IE), and will of course die with any validation error on-page.  So if you're waiting for widespread adoption of xhtml5 you'll probably be waiting an awfully long time.

So, the reason for choosing html5 was the understanding that by serving xhtml with a html mime-type you're not really using xhtml at all.  I like the syntax of strict xhtml but wanted to be forward-looking, so didn't feel like going back to html4 strict.  Basically, I don't see a good reason NOT to start using an html5 doctype even before support for the html5 elements becomes widespread. 

All the doctype does is trigger standards mode in the browser, and using an xhtml doctype without using xml mime type is pointless.

After a suggestion from Bob, I plan on releasing the calendar function as it's own package.

Dan

Hi Folks

I've just uploaded version 1., which fixes html validation and makes the subnav xslt less ... stupid.

Dan

ps the project "upload files" functionality has the following quirks

• When I upload a new version of the files the download link still points to the old version
• Deleting the old version resets the download count.

that would be 1.1...

another vote for the calendar as a package

Cool, I just need to get some free time to extract it from the site package, make it prettier and maybe improve a thing or two.  Soon!

Dan

is working on a reply...