Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Eric, Rick, Francois and others,
Nicolas commented to me about this patch that he was wondering if it
would not be better to have a separate backend for html5, i.e.
ox-html5.el that could be derived from ox-html.el and make it easier
in
Hi Eric,
thanks for the reply. OK, I am going with the patch for now, let's
push more thinking about HTML5 further down the line.
Thanks for working this out!
- Carsten
On 6.5.2013, at 09:36, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net wrote:
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Eric,
thanks for the reply. OK, I am going with the patch for now, let's
push more thinking about HTML5 further down the line.
Thanks for working this out!
My pleasure, I hope I haven't stifled debate...
On 6.5.2013, at 09:36, Eric
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 02:05:18AM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Eric,
thanks for the reply. OK, I am going with the patch for now, let's
push more thinking about HTML5 further down the line.
Thanks for working this out!
My
Hi Eric, Rick, Francois and others,
Nicolas commented to me about this patch that he was wondering if it
would not be better to have a separate backend for html5, i.e.
ox-html5.el that could be derived from ox-html.el and make it easier
in the future to build it out to take full advantage of
Thanks, I will look at this patch next week.
- Carsten
On 2.5.2013, at 23:07, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 08:26:52PM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
Whoops. Wrong key.
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 08:26:52PM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
Whoops. Wrong key. Patch actually attached to this email...
rick
Great, I'll consolidate all these -- would it be better to mush them
into one
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 08:26:52PM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
Whoops. Wrong key. Patch actually attached to this email...
rick
Great, I'll consolidate all these -- would it be better to mush them
into one big patch, or to keep them separate (I
On 29.04.2013 02:02, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:14:17AM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
See the discussions of polyglot markup @
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_markup
and
Whoops. Wrong key. Patch actually attached to this email...
rick
From d95a365f547fdc681c530c9088f775b30a37d9aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:35:14 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Modify processing of xhtml declaration.
* lisp/ox-html.el
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
Whoops. Wrong key. Patch actually attached to this email...
rick
Great, I'll consolidate all these -- would it be better to mush them
into one big patch, or to keep them separate (I suppose for ease of
rollback, if something goes wrong)?
E
Hello,
Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net writes:
Tangential coding question: I've noticed that setting HTML_HTML5_FANCY
to nil at the top of the export file results in `(plist-get info
:html-html5-fancy)' returning the string nil, ie true. Not right,
obviously, and it makes it
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:14:17AM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
Therefore, `org-html-close-tag' should check that the doctype is not a
flavor of html4 rather than a flavor of xhtml. An alternative would be
to
On 25.04.2013 17:20, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Who knew this would turn out to be such a fraught issue! All I wanted
was that little green checkmark from the W3C...
Here's what I think should be an acceptable final patch. I dropped
the
CDATA mess, and came up with a slightly different
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
On 25.04.2013 17:20, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Who knew this would turn out to be such a fraught issue! All I wanted
was that little green checkmark from the W3C...
Here's what I think should be an acceptable final patch. I dropped
the
CDATA mess, and
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:14:17AM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
Therefore, `org-html-close-tag' should check that the doctype is not a
flavor of html4 rather than a flavor of xhtml. An alternative would be
to add (xhtml5 . !DOCTYPE html) to the
François Pinard pin...@iro.umontreal.ca writes:
Christian Wittern cwitt...@gmail.com writes:
On 2013-04-23 21:09, François Pinard wrote:
If I remember well [...]
Well, in this case you are misremembering, empty elements, aka as
self-closing tags are one of the innovations of XML. Just my
Christian Wittern cwitt...@gmail.com writes:
On 2013-04-23 21:09, François Pinard wrote:
If I remember well [...]
Well, in this case you are misremembering, empty elements, aka as
self-closing tags are one of the innovations of XML. Just my nit to pick,
A friendly nit-picking is always a
On 23.4.2013, at 06:57, Samuel Wales samolog...@gmail.com wrote:
As a non-expert HTML user, I'd want whatever works on the most
browsers, even old ones, as my audience is likely to include many who
have old browsers in addition to many who have new ones, mobile ones,
and
Carsten Dominik carsten.domi...@gmail.com writes:
On 23.4.2013, at 06:57, Samuel Wales samolog...@gmail.com wrote:
As a non-expert HTML user, I'd want whatever works on the most
browsers, even old ones, as my audience is likely to include many who
have old browsers in addition to many who
Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net writes:
I read that as just a better statement of what I was trying to say
earlier: self-closing tags will render in HTML4, but they're not
_strictly correct_ HTML4.
I do not understand this assertion. I thought that HTML, up to but
excluding HTML5,
On 2013-04-23 21:09, François Pinard wrote:
If I remember well, self-closing
tags date back to SGML, not requiring (but also not forbidding) an
introducing space to the closing slash. SGML does allow for closing
tags to be optionally omitted (and for opening tags as well) but such
optional
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:59:32AM +0800, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
The / style doesn't validate for html4, that's what I was going on.
It certainly doesn't make my browser explode, but I wanted that little
green checkmark! If we can live with that, that's fine, or I can try to
come up with a
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:59:32AM +0800, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
The / style doesn't validate for html4, that's what I was going on.
It certainly doesn't make my browser explode, but I wanted that little
green checkmark! If we can live with that,
On 19.04.2013 05:57, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
I'm starting a new thread for this since the previous discussion was
buried in with something tangential.
I'm not proud of some of the implementation (self-closing vs
non-self-closing tags are ugly, and I wish org-html-html5-p and
org-html-xhtml-p
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
On 19.04.2013 05:57, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
I'm starting a new thread for this since the previous discussion was
buried in with something tangential.
I'm not proud of some of the implementation (self-closing vs
non-self-closing tags are ugly, and I
26 matches
Mail list logo
