Jonathan, I don't see the "confirmation that this is not legal HTML" that you reference. I see a warning that some browsers may not interpret it correctly. But IE 5+ and all Firefox, Chrome, Netscape, Opera, etc. versions interpret it correctly.
I understand your point about the spec not specifically allowing it. HOWEVER, I promise you there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of existing JavaDoc'd classes that will break JavaDoc generation as a result of this change. Maybe doclint (what does that stand for, by the way?) could be a default-off feature instead of a default-on feature? Nick On Jul 25, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > The message about "self-closing element not allowed" is because self-closing > elements are not allowed in HTML 4. The message is generated by the new > "doclint" feature available in javac and javadoc, which is specifically > intended to detect issues in javadoc comments. If you do not wish to use the > new doclint feature, you can disable it with -Xdoclint:none. > > > As confirmation that this is not legal HTML, try typing a code fragment such > as the following into the W3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/check > >> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> >> <head> >> <title>test</title> >> </head> >> <body> >> <br/> >> </body> >> </html> > > You will get the following warning: > >> 1. /Line 6 <http://validator.w3.org/check#line-6>, Column 4/: >> NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES >> |<br*/*>| >> >> For the current document, the validator interprets strings like >> |<FOO />| according to legacy rules that break the expectations of >> most authors and thus cause confusing warnings and error messages >> from the validator. This interpretation is triggered by HTML 4 >> documents or other SGML-based HTML documents. To avoid the >> messages, simply remove the "/" character in such contexts. NB: If >> you expect |<FOO />| to be interpreted as an XML-compatible >> "self-closing" tag, then you need to use XHTML or HTML5. >> >> This warning and related errors may also be caused by an unquoted >> attribute value containing one or more "/". Example: |<a >> href=http://w3c.org>W3C</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. 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 >>> 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 "self-closing element not allowed" in >>> quotes). Some (including myself) are asking, "Why should we fix this? The >>> problem is not in the JavaDoc, it's in the JavDoc compiler." However, I >>> haven't been able to find anyone who has actually broached the subject on >>> any mailing lists. >>> >>> <br /> is completely legal. While it is not strictly required by the HTML >>> standard (unless you're using XHTML), using self-closing tags is >>> /preferred/ because it's more obvious what the intention is. Perhaps most >>> importantly, <br /> is supported on 100% of browsers and is used throughout >>> JavaDoc all over the place. I have a feeling that once more projects start >>> compiling on a released Java 8, this is going to make a fair number of >>> people angry that hey have to "fix" (read: needlessly change) potentially >>> thousands of classes' worth of JavaDoc. >>> >>> What was the motivation behind the new "self-closing element not allowed" >>> check and how can we make it go away? >> >> Not really having a stake in this, I just want to observe a couple things. >> First, from what I can see, the HTML 4.x specifications make no reference to >> self-closing elements or their syntactical realization. As far as I can >> tell (not being any kind of SGML expert), self-closing elements are not >> valid or meaningful HTML according to its SGML definition. >> >> Finally, even if they were allowed, the BR tag is explicitly defined to >> forbid an end tag; self-closing elements imply an end tag (at least they do >> in XML, which appears to be the next-nearest concrete specification that has >> anything to say on the matter). >> >> See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/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 <scolebou...@joda.org> >> Date: >> 07/25/2013 10:59 AM >> >> To: >> core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net >> >> >> 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 certainly my default. The javadoc validator should be as >> lenient as browsers are in this case. >> >> Stephen >> >> >> On 25 July 2013 18:41, David M. Lloyd<david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >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 that has >>>> >>legal <br /> tags in it (just google "self-closing element not allowed" >>>> >>in >>>> >>quotes). Some (including myself) are asking, "Why should we fix this? The >>>> >>problem is not in the JavaDoc, it's in the JavDoc compiler." However, I >>>> >>haven't been able to find anyone who has actually broached the subject on >>>> >>any mailing lists. >>>> >> >>>> >><br /> is completely legal. While it is not strictly required by the HTML >>>> >>standard (unless you're using XHTML), using self-closing tags >>>> >>is/preferred/ >>>> >>because it's more obvious what the intention is. Perhaps most >>>> >>importantly, >>>> >><br /> is supported on 100% of browsers and is used throughout JavaDoc >>>> >>all >>>> >>over the place. I have a feeling that once more projects start compiling >>>> >>on >>>> >>a released Java 8, this is going to make a fair number of people angry >>>> >>that >>>> >>hey have to "fix" (read: needlessly change) potentially thousands of >>>> >>classes' worth of JavaDoc. >>>> >> >>>> >>What was the motivation behind the new "self-closing element not allowed" >>>> >>check and how can we make it go away? >>> > >>> > >>> >Not really having a stake in this, I just want to observe a couple things. >>> >First, from what I can see, the HTML 4.x specifications make no reference >>> >to >>> >self-closing elements or their syntactical realization. As far as I can >>> >tell (not being any kind of SGML expert), self-closing elements are not >>> >valid or meaningful HTML according to its SGML definition. >>> > >>> >Finally, even if they were allowed, the BR tag is explicitly defined to >>> >forbid an end tag; self-closing elements imply an end tag (at least they do >>> >in XML, which appears to be the next-nearest concrete specification that >>> >has >>> >anything to say on the matter). >>> > >>> >Seehttp://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/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 >
