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 developer conforming to javadoc conventions can be
assured of a robust and consistent presentation.
Other tools besides browsers consume the generated html and those tools
should have a clean definition of the input they rely on. This
includes IDEs
that provide javadoc, conversions to more structured documentation such as
on-line help and localization.
$.02, Roger
On 7/26/2013 9:23 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 all week.
What percentage of the worlds websites contain valid HTML/XHTML
according to the DOCTYPE/validator?
I'd be amazed if its more than 1%.
The Oracle home page, java.net, java.com and J2SE download page all
fail validation. Yet all are perfactly usable websites.
RedHat:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fredhat.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.3+http%3A%2F%2Fvalidator.w3.org%2Fservices
JBoss:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jboss.org%2Foverview%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.3+http%3A%2F%2Fvalidator.w3.org%2Fservices
Tim Berners Lee said in the linked article: "Some things are clearer
with hindsight of several years. It is necessary to evolve HTML
incrementally. The attempt to get the world to switch to XML,
including quotes around attribute values and slashes in empty tags and
namespaces all at once didn't work".
This isn't Java EE. HTML is a space where standards are a *guide*. I
absolutely stand by my statement.
Stephen
