On 25 July 2013 21:46, Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com wrote:
First, as was pointed out earlier[1] in the original thread, the HTML 4 spec
does not mention the existence of self-closing elements, and in that
message,
David makes a good point that br is defined to not have an end
On 07/26/2013 04:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Its websites and
browsers that define what should be accepted as HTML, not standards.
This is the craziest thing I've read all week.
--
- DML
On 26 July 2013 13:58, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/26/2013 04:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Its websites and
browsers that define what should be accepted as HTML, not standards.
This is the craziest thing I've read all week.
What percentage of the worlds websites
On 07/26/2013 08:23 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 26 July 2013 13:58, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/26/2013 04:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Its websites and
browsers that define what should be accepted as HTML, not standards.
This is the craziest thing I've read
The html subset that appears in javadoc comments does not exist in isolation
or in a full browser context.
It is deliberately limited and structured to work within a documentation
framework
defined by javadoc and supported by the javadoc stylesheet using HTML 4.01.
Html provided by the
On 26 July 2013 14:49, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote:
You took one step outside of logic, in my opinion. Yes, the spec is a
guide, in practice. But to use that to justify not even trying to conform
or not encouraging people to conform is crazy. Without the spec, the HTML
world
On 26 July 2013 14:44, roger riggs roger.ri...@oracle.com wrote:
The html subset that appears in javadoc comments does not exist in isolation
or in a full browser context.
It is deliberately limited and structured to work within a documentation
framework
defined by javadoc and supported by
On Jul 26, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 26 July 2013 14:49, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote:
You took one step outside of logic, in my opinion. Yes, the spec is a
guide, in practice. But to use that to justify not even trying to conform
or not encouraging
Most elements MUST NOT be self closed; it'll screw up document tree.
Try this piece of html in your browser
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd;
div style=color:red; / text outside div
However br/ etc seems to be fine; they are elements with
My apologies if this is not the right place to address this. If so, please
forgive and direct me to the correct list.
There are a lot of people/projects complaining about Java 8's new self-closing
element not allowed error when compiling JavaDoc that has legal br / tags in
it (just google
On 07/25/2013 12:27 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
My apologies if this is not the right place to address this. If so, please
forgive and direct me to the correct list.
There are a lot of people/projects complaining about Java 8's new self-closing element not allowed
error when compiling JavaDoc
Its complicated, see for example:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3558119/are-self-closing-tags-valid-in-html5
The key point here is not whether its in the standard or not, but what
people actually *do*.
There is no doubt in my mind that br / br space slash is very common
indeed. Its
It all hinges on whether the tool is generating HTML 4 or HTML 5. If 4,
then the output should be HTML 4 strict and this kind of input should
either be translated or forced to be valid.
If the output is going to be HTML 5 - which I suspect is going to be
considered premature given the usual
Hi, the documents are HTML 4. I checked a sample with w3c validator and
there i get only a warning (not an error).
Warning Line 180, Column 4: NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
br/
✉
The sequence FOO / can be interpreted in at least two different ways,
depending on the DOCTYPE
://w3c.orgW3C/a|. In such cases, the solution is to
put quotation marks around the value.
-- Jon
On 07/25/2013 11:14 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error.eml
Subject:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error
From:
David M
Correction: I see now that we're using Frameset doctype for the parent page and
Transitional for the pages within frames. I misunderstood that. My bad.
On Jul 25, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
Point of interest: JavaDoc uses the HTML 4 Loose specification, not the
HTML 4 Strict
Point of interest: JavaDoc uses the HTML 4 Loose specification, not the HTML
4 Strict specification. By using frames, JavaDoc is in violation of the HTML
4.01 Loose specification (see below).
There are void elements and there are empty elements.
Void elements are elements that ARE NOT ALLOWED
: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error
From:
David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com
Date:
07/25/2013 10:41 AM
To:
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
On 07/25/2013 12:27 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
My apologies if this is not the right place to address this. If so, please
/text.html#edef-BR for more info.
So I'm curious when you say using self-closing tags is /preferred/, do you
have any sources to cite?
--
- DML
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error.eml
Subject:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error
From:
Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error.eml
Subject:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error
From:
David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com
Date:
07/25/2013 10:41 AM
To:
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
On 07/25/2013 12:27 PM, Nick Williams
is to
put quotation marks around the value.
-- Jon
On 07/25/2013 11:14 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error.eml
Subject:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error
From:
David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com
Date:
07/25/2013 10
error.eml
Subject:
Re: Invalid self-closing element not allowed JavaDoc error
From:
David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com
Date:
07/25/2013 10:41 AM
To:
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
On 07/25/2013 12:27 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
My apologies if this is not the right place to address
On 07/25/2013 05:21 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
So why is self-closing element not allowed considered an error when it's only
a warning when validated with a W3 validator? Seems to me like a reasonable compromise to
make this a warning instead of an error. Thoughts?
Right now, the guideline is
23 matches
Mail list logo
