Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: > On 27/01/2011 5:36 PM, Per Jessen wrote: >> >>> I believe that the behavior of HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD is valid in >>> this case, as<head/> is invalid HTML (despite what the validator >>> says) and should not be used by anyone. >> >> True, but html_eval_tag() will fire on _any_ short tag. >> >> >> /Per Jessen, Zürich >> >> > > If it's firing on <head/> with no content, that's completely valid > don't you think? It's invalid HTML and contains no content.
Yes, I agree. > Could you provide an example of a site using <div/> or <p/> shorthand > tags? I've never seen them before anywhere. I could point you to one of mine :-), but otherwise I don't know of any off hand. I don't do much website programming, I'm more focused on filtering out spam. > Previously, my understanding has always been that shorthanded closing > was only allowed for tags that didn't have a closing tag before (such > as <meta>). The HTML recommendations support this. In XML, they all have a closing tag though? XSLT will certainly complain about a missing tag: XSLT warning: Fatal Error at (file notify-email.html.xsl, line 54, column 51): Expected end of tag 'meta' (notify-email.html.xsl, line 54, column 51) SAXParseException: Expected end of tag 'meta' (notify-email.html.xsl, line 54, column 51) (I asked for XHTML Transitional output). > Perhaps there is further work to be done in SA regarding handling HTML > balancing, but <head/> is pointless to test for as it has no reason or > possible use in the real world. Agree. > If html_eval_tag() is firing on any short tag, and not just the > invalid example code, that would signal a possible bug and > investigation. Actually no - whilst html_eval_tag() does fire on any short tag, you have specify which tag you want to check for. I hadn't noticed that yesterday. The 3.2.5 ruleset only checks on body and head. Problem solved. Thanks for the chat anyway. /Per Jessen, Zürich
