Re: org-mode Publishing fails xhtml validation and LibreJS test.
* Tim Cross [2020-12-13 04:09]: > Given the move to HTML5 and deprecation of XHTML, how valid are > XHTML compliance requirements these days? Could it be time to > 'reverse' the org defaults and export using HTML5 by default rather > than XHTML? There is no deprecation of XHTML, not until there comes XHTML5. And XHTML will remain for good number of years. It serves slightly different purpose and is more suitable for Org exports due to its rigid structure. XHTML must all the time be valid. Org export function should, when possible, or by user configured, include the validator check. It would not be good to switch to HTML5 because software does not produce XHTML well. It is better finding those bugs. > Would it be sufficient to just have the license information embedded > as a simple comment? Here are ways to make it compatible with LibreJS: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html Jean
Re: org-mode Publishing fails xhtml validation and LibreJS test.
Dear Time, > Tim Cross writes: > Colin Baxter writes: >> Hello, >> >> When publishing, org-mode inserts the following javascript in the >> xhtml file: >> >> #+begin_src js // @license >> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e95b018ef3580986a04669f1b5879592219e2a7a&dn=public-domain.txt >> Public Domain // >> @license-end #+end_src >> >> There are issues with this script. >> >> 1. The script gives errors in XHTML 1.0 Strict validation. For >> example, the line beginning //@license ... gives errors of the >> type: a. cannot generate system identifier for general entity >> "dn" b. general entity "dn" not defined and no default entity >> c. reference not terminated by REFC delimiter etc. >> >> 2. The script fails the LibreJS (gnu.org/software/librejs) >> tests. This can be tested by opining the page in icecat. >> >> In order to pass XHTML and LibreJS validation tests, I have to >> delete the script from my web pages by hand. >> > Given the move to HTML5 and deprecation of XHTML, how valid are > XHTML compliance requirements these days? Could it be time to > 'reverse' the org defaults and export using HTML5 by default > rather than XHTML? I believe it remains important to have XHTML compliance, a view which would seem consistent with W3C's retention of its validation service. > Would it be sufficient to just have the license information > embedded as a simple comment? I think this might be a good idea. And if it gets rid of the non-free javascript (as defined by LibreJS and therefore by gnu) then so much the better. Best wishes, Colin Baxter. Colin Baxter URL: http://www.Colin-Baxter.com - GnuPG fingerprint: 68A8 799C 0230 16E7 BF68 2A27 BBFA 2492 91F5 41C8 -
Re: org-mode Publishing fails xhtml validation and LibreJS test.
Colin Baxter writes: > Hello, > > When publishing, org-mode inserts the following javascript in the xhtml file: > > #+begin_src js > > // @license > magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e95b018ef3580986a04669f1b5879592219e2a7a&dn=public-domain.txt > Public Domain > > // @license-end > > #+end_src > > There are issues with this script. > > 1. The script gives errors in XHTML 1.0 Strict validation. For example, > the line beginning //@license ... gives errors of the type: > a. cannot generate system identifier for general entity "dn" > b. general entity "dn" not defined and no default entity > c. reference not terminated by REFC delimiter > etc. > > 2. The script fails the LibreJS (gnu.org/software/librejs) tests. This > can be tested by opining the page in icecat. > > In order to pass XHTML and LibreJS validation tests, I have to delete > the script from my web pages by hand. > Given the move to HTML5 and deprecation of XHTML, how valid are XHTML compliance requirements these days? Could it be time to 'reverse' the org defaults and export using HTML5 by default rather than XHTML? Would it be sufficient to just have the license information embedded as a simple comment? -- Tim Cross
