Open sabine opened 1 year ago
Many thanks, @sabine, for your interest in improving this asppect of the website. I am fully convinced that this is a fundamental issue and that many improvements do have this prerequisite that the generated HTML code is valid.
May I suggest to slightly modify the terminology in this issue to make it
more pprecise? To be more precise myself, I think invalid HTMML
would be
clearer and more well-defined than broken
HTML.
The HTML not being valid does indeed make it possible that the rendering varies between browsers, because the way a browser renders HTML is well defined only if the HTML is valid. If it is not, then the browser will render it as best as it can but the way to recover from invalid HTML is browser-specific and has thus no reason to be consistent from one browser to another. this of course imppacts accessibility but the impact is much broader.
Thanks again! Very well done!
@shindere Indeed, you're correct that invalid HTML has a much wider negative impact than bad (or impossible) accessibility.
I opened another issue focusing explicitly on improving accessibility here: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml.org/issues/880
Currently, we have a lot of pages with invalid HTML and this completely breaks the UX for people using screen-readers (and can also lead to funny visual artifacts and strange behaviour on different screen sizes).
Thus, we must fix all the invalid HTML markup.
Also, we need to introduce technical means to ensure that we do not serve invalid HTML. There are two ways we can achieve that:
To do: