Ciao registrierungs genervter (Is that your actual name :) Great post!
Very illuminating & informative. Looks definitive. I deleted my last post as utterly naive on HTML 5 in-browser. The "spare" p's in TW look like clutter. But escape detection in 5 validation so live on? Is that the central practical issue? >From a minor idiot who does smell an issue. Thanks and best wishes Josiah On Tuesday, 26 March 2019 05:52:50 UTC+1, registrierungs genervter wrote: > > If i am not wrong a *div* was never allowed inside a *p* (because the > content model of *p*s is phrasing content > <https://stackoverflow.com/a/34683474/1658543>). I tested it: > > > HTML 2.0 > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8"> > <title>Is a in a p allowed? Lets see.</title> > </head> > <body> > <p><div></div></p> > </body> > </html> > > results in > > element "DIV" undefined. > > > The div element did not exist in html 2.0. > > > HTML 3.2 > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8"> > <title>Is a in a p allowed? Lets see.</title> > </head> > <body> > <p><div></div></p> > </body> > </html> > > results in > > end tag for element "P" which is not open. > > > I dunno what happens here. Shouldnt the validator complain something like: > *divs > inside of ps are not allowed*? > > > HTML 4.1 Transitional > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" " > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> > <html> > <head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8"> > <title>Is a in a p allowed? Lets see.</title> > </head> > <body> > <p><div></div></p> > </body> > </html> > > Same message. > > > XHTML 1.0 Transitional > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" " > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";> > <head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8"/> > <title>Is a in a p allowed? Lets see.</title> > </head> > <body> > <p><div></div></p> > </body> > </html> > > results in > > document type does not allow element "div" here. > > > Nice error message, thanks to the DTD. > > > HTML 5 > > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html lang="en"> > <head> > <meta charset="UTF-8"> > <title>Is a in a p allowed? Lets see.</title> > </head> > <body> > <p><div></div></p> > </body> > </html> > > Back to ambiguous messages: > > No p element in scope but a p end tag seen. > > > Background: HTML5 allows some end tags to be left away - a never ending > source of confusion and bugs in my opinion. The gory details are listed > here <http://w3c.github.io/html/syntax.html#optional-tags>. Quote: > > A p element’s end tag may be omitted if the p element is immediately >> followed by an address, article, aside, blockquote, details, div, dl, >> fieldset, figcaption, figure, footer, form, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, header, >> hr, main, nav, ol, p, pre, section, table, or ul element, or if there is no >> more content in the parent element and the parent element is an HTML >> element that is not an a, audio, del, ins, map, noscript, or video element, >> or an autonomous custom element. > > > So: > > - My guess is Jeremy Ruston once added a *p* (in order to get a quick > margin bottom), > - He forgot about it, > - Starting with HTML5, W3C introduces optional end tags, > - Now TiddlyWiki uses the HTML5 doctype, > - The *p* gets implicitely closed before the *div,* > - The closing *p* after the div results in the validator considering > the markup to be structurally invalid (it actually is just not > semantically valid, but the validator can not detect this, at least not > without backtracking). > > The solution is either to use a *div* with a class instead of the *p.* > > Or, even sexier, to use a custom element like <in-text></in-text>. *This > will validate, as long as the custom element contains hyphens*! This is > not a bug in the W3C validator, see this Stackoverflow Answer > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10830682/is-it-ok-to-use-unknown-html-tags/27869027#27869027>. > > In the comments the developer of the W3C Validator confirms this > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10830682/is-it-ok-to-use-unknown-html-tags/27869027#comment72073089_27869027> > > and he explains his reasoning in another answer > <https://stackoverflow.com/a/28711028/1658543>. > > For example, the following html5 document validates both with the W3C > validator and with the mentioned html5lib parser: > > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html lang="en"> > <head> > <meta charset="UTF-8"> > <title>Are custom ellements allowed? Lets see.</title> > </head> > <body> > <inside-of-text><tiddler-module> ... </tiddler-module></inside-of-text> > </body> > </html> > > (If you remove the hyphens in those custom elements it will not longer > validate) > > I do this myself. It makes sense in a web app (but not in a basic document > which is intended to be crawled by search engines or autoformatted in handy > displays). The markup in the html and the css is cleaner, no surprises from > browser stylesheets and the validator doesnt complain. There are quite a > few people who do this. Eg Lichess or AngularJS ui-select. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/8cd5388e-0318-4a65-b70d-953e71a285b4%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
