[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: texi2html output validity

From: Ivan Shmakov
Subject: Re: texi2html output validity
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:37:30 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

>>>>> Yuri Khan <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Ivan Shmakov <address@hidden> wrote:

 >>>> In this snippet, I count 2 instances of improper tag nesting,

 >> I count just a single one, but yes, that second </p> surely
 >> invalidates the fragment.

 > <a><p></a> is improper* nesting in my book.  All paired tags SHOULD**
 > be explicitly closed.

 > * note I did not say “invalid”

        Yes; but /I/ did.  And the HTML5 TR agrees with me on that [1]:

    A p element's end tag may be omitted if the p element is immediately
    followed by an address, article, aside, blockquote, div, dl,
    fieldset, footer, form, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, header, hgroup, hr,
    main, nav, ol, p, pre, section, table, or ul, element, or if there
    is no more content in the parent element and the parent element is
    not an a element.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#optional-tags

 > ** as in RFC2119

        The problem with “books” is that every other participant to this
        discussion will have his or her own one.

        My own preference is to write void elements like <hr />, and to
        spell out the opening and closing tags for all the other
        elements, – /unless/ there’s a reason not to (say, for
        educational purposes.)

        However, this is, to stress it out, – just my preference, – the
        very same thing that makes me disable global-font-lock-mode in
        Emacs, or to run Firefox with ECMAScript disabled (via NoScript)
        most of the time.  And the sole justification I have for this
        first preference is that it allows me to write valid HTML
        documents which are – at the very same time – well-formed XML.

        As for the software that I’m not the principal developer of, –
        I’d accept any output that does conform to the standards.


 > @key should be rendered as <kbd>, possibly with an additional class.
 > Yes, even when inside @kbd — HTML allows and encourages nesting
 > <kbd>.

        No objection.

 > @t is a non-semantic command in Texinfo and should probably be
 > discouraged the same way <tt> has been discouraged in HTML since at
 > least 1997.  It probably should become a <span class="t"> styled with
 > .t { font-family: monospace }.

 > @verb is syntax sugar for escaping characters which have special
 > meaning in Texinfo, and has a non-semantic side effect of fixed-width
 > rendering.  It probably should become a <span class="verb">.

        Given that either command is probably currently used for code
        fragments anyway, using <code /> (possibly with a class) sounds
        like a better solution.


 > Note also that <tt> and <a>/<p> nesting order are just the tip of the
 > iceberg. The wider problem is that the Texinfo HTML generator
 > generally assumes HTML ≈3.2 even though it declares 4.01
 > Transitional:

        … The question is: is it still necessary to offer HTML 3
        compatibility in the generated documents?


FSF associate member #7257  http://boycottsystemd.org/  … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]