Created attachment 36299 [details] Patch that adds important doctypes to the doctype defines Hello! I noticed that most of the time, when Apache httpd itself generates HTML output (like for 404 pages and autoindex pages) it uses ancient HTML 2.0 and HTML 3.2 doctypes. These 11 attached diffs update those. The most important of these diffs is httpdh.diff I compiled and tested these diffs, and everything I tested works fine! Browsers now render those pages in standards mode rather than quirks mode. While I made these patches for httpd 2.4.37 these patches would likely also be useful for trunk. This could be the first step in making sure all the HTML output is more valid. I also originally sent this here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e906a9ac878dc7de35d875006b6714c9fc8b0812e6780c8286fe6c66@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E Thanks for reading!
Created attachment 36300 [details] Change doctype in http_protocol.c
Created attachment 36301 [details] Make the "It works!" page valid HTML
Created attachment 36302 [details] Change doctype in mod_autoindex.c
Created attachment 36303 [details] Change doctype in mod_dav.h
Created attachment 36304 [details] Change doctype in mod_example_hooks.c
Created attachment 36305 [details] Change doctype in mod_imagemap.c
Created attachment 36306 [details] Change doctype in mod_proxy_balancer.c
Created attachment 36307 [details] Change doctype in mod_proxy_ftp.c
Created attachment 36308 [details] Change doctype in mod_status.c
Created attachment 36309 [details] Change doctype in util_ldap.c
Ping.
I agree that updating doc types here is good. And we can add the patches to trunk easily. However, I think we cannot backport them for a 2.4.x release. There are screenscrapers out there and expierience tells me that we would break at least one that is really important to someone. Would you agree?
+1
(In reply to Stefan Eissing from comment #12) > I agree that updating doc types here is good. And we can add the patches to > trunk easily. > > However, I think we cannot backport them for a 2.4.x release. There are > screenscrapers out there and expierience tells me that we would break at > least one that is really important to someone. > > Would you agree? Sure! If this patch gets into trunk, I'd be happy. :D If I need to re-do the diffs for trunk, let me know, and let me know the best way to get the trunk code onto my computer so I can do it.
I still want help in getting this diff in.