On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Ivan Shmakov <[email protected]> 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]: So one is <a><p></a> and the other is </p></p>. > As for the software that I’m not the principal developer of, – > I’d accept any output that does conform to the standards. Hmm. I would accept *for my own use* any output that conforms to the standards, but I would be hesitant to distribute that output. > > [@t and @verb] > > Given that either command is probably currently used for code > fragments anyway, using <code /> (possibly with a class) sounds > like a better solution. No objection. > … The question is: is it still necessary to offer HTML 3 > compatibility in the generated documents? Whyfor? HTML 4.0 was blessed seventeen years ago. HTML 4.01, fifteen years ago. HTML 5, a couple months ago.
