Most elements MUST NOT be self closed; it'll screw up document tree.
Try this piece of html in your browser
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";>
text outside div
However etc seems to be fine; they are elements with EMPTY
content model, or "VOID element" in html 5 jargon. There are exactly
1
On Jul 26, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 26 July 2013 14:49, David M. Lloyd 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 i
On 26 July 2013 14:44, roger riggs 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 the javadoc styleshe
On 26 July 2013 14:49, David M. Lloyd 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 would be even more
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 develope
On 07/26/2013 08:23 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 26 July 2013 13:58, David M. Lloyd 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 percen
On 26 July 2013 13:58, David M. Lloyd 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 H
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 25 July 2013 21:46, Jonathan Gibbons 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 is defined to not have an end tag,
> making the syntax d
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
t;>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>> >>&g
by an unquoted
attribute value containing one or more "/". Example: |http://w3c.org>W3C|. 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
s
>>>>> /preferred/ because it's more obvious what the intention is. Perhaps most
>>>>> importantly, is supported on 100% of browsers and is used
>>>>> throughout JavaDoc all over the place. I have a feeling that once more
>>>>> proje
use XHTML or HTML5.
This warning and related errors may also be caused by an unquoted
attribute value containing one or more "/". Example: |http://w3c.org>W3C|. In such cases, the solution is to
put quotation marks around the value.
-- Jon
On 07/25/2013 11:14 AM, Alan
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
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 ALLOW
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
✉
The sequence can be interpreted in at least two different ways,
depending on the DOCTYPE of the d
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 usu
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 space slash is very common
indeed. Its certainly my
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 t
21 matches
Mail list logo
