Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 5/25/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not causing validation issues does not make them fine; even if the vast majority of user agents don't respect it, img / in an HTML document means An image element followed by a greater than sign. The HTML specification explicitly advises authors to avoid them: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7 Interesting, but I don't understand how that section applies? How do you get from these constructs technically introduce no ambiguity in that section, to a self-closed image being An image element followed by a greater than sign? Especially since this case is explicitly shown in the compatibility guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_2). Is Vlad from Xstandard wrong when he said: if an authoring tool generates XHTML in a backwards compatible way, then there is no need to have a configuration to produce either HTML or XHTML. The backwards compatible XHTML will work in HTML and XHTML templates. (http://alastairc.ac/2007/02/wysiwyg-editor-spec-checklist/#comment-12741 ) Or is this a case of it doesn't quite comply to part of a spec but doesn't make any difference in practice? If it isn't, perhaps the W3C's HTML validator should be updated? Cheers, -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 29 May 2007, at 12:50, Alastair Campbell wrote: On 5/25/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not causing validation issues does not make them fine; even if the vast majority of user agents don't respect it, img / in an HTML document means An image element followed by a greater than sign. The HTML specification explicitly advises authors to avoid them: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7 Interesting, but I don't understand how that section applies? How do you get from these constructs technically introduce no ambiguity in that section, to a self-closed image being An image element followed by a greater than sign? Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously means An image element followed by a greater than sign. Especially since this case is explicitly shown in the compatibility guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_2). ... because most browsers don't support img / correctly in HTML documents, you can write XHTML documents that are compatible with most HTML user agents (this is not the same as being compatible with HTML). Is Vlad from Xstandard wrong when he said: if an authoring tool generates XHTML in a backwards compatible way, then there is no need to have a configuration to produce either HTML or XHTML. The backwards compatible XHTML will work in HTML and XHTML templates. (http://alastairc.ac/2007/02/wysiwyg-editor-spec-checklist/ #comment-12741 ) Depends on your definition of work. It renders as the author intends in most HTML user agents. It doesn't mean what the author intends in anything that parses the HTML correctly. Or is this a case of it doesn't quite comply to part of a spec but No. The spec allows img /, it just means something different. doesn't make any difference in practice? W3 used to parse the construct correctly under HTML rules (when I used it from time to time). Since then, I think they have crippled its HTML handling to cope with the amount of bad markup out there. If it isn't, perhaps the W3C's HTML validator should be updated? Anywhere an img element is allowed in an HTML document, a greater than sign is also allowed. So the construct is valid and the validator should not claim otherwise. It just doesn't mean what the author intends. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On May 29, 2007, at 9:26 AM, David Dorward wrote: Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously means An image element followed by a greater than sign. Sorry to be dense, I'm trying to grasp this concept. Does (at least strictly speaking) the inclusion of a forward slash within the tag of any element prevent the tag in question from being terminated? I guess my question is how a tag that has not been terminated (with ) can be said to be followed by anything at all? And further: ... because most browsers don't support img / correctly in HTML documents How is img / (or presumably br /) correctly supported? And which browsers do correctly support it? Thanks, Andrew 109B SE 4th Av Gainesville FL 32601 Cell: 352-870-6661 http://www.andrewmaben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 29 May 2007, at 14:55, Andrew Maben wrote: On May 29, 2007, at 9:26 AM, David Dorward wrote: Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously means An image element followed by a greater than sign. Sorry to be dense, I'm trying to grasp this concept. Does (at least strictly speaking) the inclusion of a forward slash within the tag of any element prevent the tag in question from being terminated? No. A forward slash terminates the tag (so the character is outside the tag, so its character data). In HTML all these mean the same thing: img / img imggt; (and title/ foo / means the same as title foo /title) ... because most browsers don't support img / correctly in HTML documents How is img / (or presumably br /) correctly supported? And which browsers do correctly support it? An image (or line break) followed by a character. So Hellobr / World should be rendered: Hello World (in HTML). The only browser I know of, off the top of my head, that gets it right is W3 (and as mentioned, I believe it was intentionally crippled to cope with fallout from Appendix C). Of course nsgmls and related programs also get it right. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 5/29/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously means An image element followed by a greater than sign. I still can't see where it says that in the spec, do you need to know the SGML spec as well? It seems strange that the closing slash is taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the HTML spec somewhere? Since this is either ill defined or not defined in the HTML spec so far (unless WHATWG tackled it?), I'd suggest that the method implied by XHTML compatibility guidelines might be a more suitable reference in future? the construct is valid and the validator should not claim otherwise. It just doesn't mean what the author intends. Given the mis-match in meaning that does not produce an error, surely it's something that should change then? Kind regards, -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
I still can't see where it says that in the spec, do you need to know the SGML spec as well? It seems strange that the closing slash is taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the HTML spec somewhere? http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/sgmldecl.html FEATURES, SHORTTAG YES ... Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 5/29/07, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/sgmldecl.html FEATURES, SHORTTAG YES I guess from that I should deduce that I do need to know the SGML spec to know that a slash will terminate a tag? I hope HTML5 does away with this... -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 29 May 2007, at 16:14:53, Alastair Campbell wrote: On 5/29/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously means An image element followed by a greater than sign. I still can't see where it says that in the spec, do you need to know the SGML spec as well? Yes, HTML is an SGML application, as described in the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.1 Therefore a compliant parser must parse according to the rules of SGML. The spec does include an appendix: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#sgmlfeatures listing aspects of SGML that are poorly supported by existing user agents; however, that doesn't excuse or justify improper behaviour by parsers, and the entire appendix is informative, not normative. The specific SGML SHORTTAG construct under discusssion in this thread is included in the appendix at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7 Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 29/05/07, Alastair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/29/07, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because, in an HTML document, an XHTML style img tag unambiguously means An image element followed by a greater than sign. I still can't see where it says that in the spec, do you need to know the SGML spec as well? Just in the same way you can't know XHTML if you have no knowledge of XML, you can't really know HTML 2-4.01 with no knowledge of SGML. You don't need to know all of SGML however, just the subset that is used for HTML. It seems strange that the closing slash is taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the HTML spec somewhere? Yes, in the SGML declaration. Since this is either ill defined or not defined in the HTML spec so far (unless WHATWG tackled it?), I'd suggest that the method implied by XHTML compatibility guidelines might be a more suitable reference in future? Or the mechanism specified in the HTML 5 draft. But that's not even a WD yet, so it'll have to wait. the construct is valid and the validator should not claim otherwise. It just doesn't mean what the author intends. Given the mis-match in meaning that does not produce an error, surely it's something that should change then? HTML 5 will change it by no longer specifying that HTML is SGML. And just for fun, let me give you an example of three documents: uri:http://liorean.net/samplelayout.html uri:http://liorean.net/sgml-goodness.html uri:http://liorean.net/xhtmllayout.xhtml All of them are valid documents and except for DOCTYPE, XML prologue and XHTML namespace the document they describe is identical. -- David liorean Andersson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
Thanks Liorean, On 5/29/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just in the same way you can't know XHTML if you have no knowledge of XML, you can't really know HTML 2-4.01 with no knowledge of SGML. You don't need to know all of SGML however, just the subset that is used for HTML. It seems strange that the closing slash is taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the HTML spec somewhere? Yes, in the SGML declaration. Which someone linked to earlier, and I still can't translate to see anything on forward slashes... is there actually an SGML spec? You'd have thought it would be linked to from here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html or googlable with SGML spec, but no such luck. Cheers, -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 29 May 2007, at 17:32:08, Alastair Campbell wrote: It seems strange that the closing slash is taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the HTML spec somewhere? Yes, in the SGML declaration. Which someone linked to earlier, and I still can't translate to see anything on forward slashes... is there actually an SGML spec? You'd have thought it would be linked to from here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html or googlable with SGML spec, but no such luck. The SGML spec is ISO 8879:1986, but being ISO, they charge a fortune for you to see it :-( The topic under discussion is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, mentioned in HTML 4.01 at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7 as being something with poor support in HTML user agents. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 29/05/07, Alastair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/29/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems strange that the closing slash is taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the HTML spec somewhere? Yes, in the SGML declaration. Which someone linked to earlier, and I still can't translate to see anything on forward slashes... is there actually an SGML spec? Yes. Linking it probably won't help you though. You'll soon understand why: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=16387scopelist= More useful would be the SGML Handbook or some summary site, such as uri:http://xml.coverpages.org//sgmlsyn/contents.htm You'd have thought it would be linked to from here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html or googlable with SGML spec, but no such luck. Well, I got more than enough matches on SGML and Standard. -- David liorean Andersson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
On 5/29/07, Nick Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The topic under discussion is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, mentioned in HTML 4.01 at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7 as being something with poor support in HTML user agents. Which I read, thank you, but unless I'm being particularly thick (quite possible, it was a long weekend ;), I can't see how that affects terminating characters. Without the SGML spec, what is a NET character? It's just frustrating not to be able to get to the source and find out what these things are. Further googling lead to these which actually explain the issue, so for anyone else who was confused: http://www.rikkertkoppes.com/thoughts/2005/01/27/ http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/04/xhtml-future Cheers, -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
Alastair Campbell wrote: On 5/29/07, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/sgmldecl.html FEATURES, SHORTTAG YES I guess from that I should deduce that I do need to know the SGML spec to know that a slash will terminate a tag? I hope HTML5 does away with this... HTML5 disposes of the myth that HTML is an application of SGML, so you don't need to understand SGML at all. In fact, in HTML5, the trailing slash is explicitly permitted for void elements, though it's not necessary. Void elements (formerly known as empty elements in SGML) are elements like br, img, meta, etc. Thus, in HTML5, both img and img/ are permitted and mean the same thing. The slash is ignored by the parser. However, the slash is not permitted for non-empty elements. e.g. p/ is not allowed in HTML, though it is in XHTML because XML rules apply. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: self-closing tags in HTML, was: [WSG] A CMS for POSH sites?
Alastair Campbell wrote: On 5/29/07, Nick Fitzsimons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The topic under discussion is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, mentioned in HTML 4.01 at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7 as being something with poor support in HTML user agents. Which I read, thank you, but unless I'm being particularly thick (quite possible, it was a long weekend ;), I can't see how that affects terminating characters. Without the SGML spec, what is a NET character? It's just frustrating not to be able to get to the source and find out what these things are. SGML and HTML Explained by Martin Bryan [1] will explain everything you need to know about SGML. In particular, chapter 4 explains the SHORTTAG NET features. Figure 4.4 [2] lists the default delimiter characters from the reference concrete syntax, which includes: / NET Null end-tag That can be set in the SGML declaration, but because it's not explicitly set in HTML4, it uses the default. [1] http://www.is-thought.co.uk/book/ [2] http://www.is-thought.co.uk/book/sgml-4.htm#Fig4-4 -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***