From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Yuri Khan Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.texinfo.bugs,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: texi2html output validity Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 23:08:23 +0700 Message-ID: References: <87388bnzha.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87k31mdbhe.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87tx0qiv45.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87h9wqd3i5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87h9wqimf0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87y4q1fekv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87k31kga2y.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r3vsdps7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87a92ehctk.fsf_-_@violet.siamics.net> <87y4pyfkcl.fsf@violet.siamics.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1419350917 6602 80.91.229.3 (23 Dec 2014 16:08:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:08:37 +0000 (UTC) To: bug-texinfo@gnu.org, Emacs developers Original-X-From: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 23 17:08:30 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gnu-bug-texinfo2@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3S0a-0007Ay-65 for gnu-bug-texinfo2@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:08:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45264 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3S0Z-0006fI-Fi for gnu-bug-texinfo2@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:08:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35083) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3S0W-0006ez-Qp for bug-texinfo@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:08:25 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3S0V-0007v7-TY for bug-texinfo@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:08:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]:57151) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3S0V-0007v2-PZ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:08:23 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id rl12so4449988iec.40; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:08:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rku4VkwFDsinEmeUPEUgohDO5NuFmjIdqS1K7nJQ530=; b=QjElY4B4tnXKkPTQ3HMhGvRsnYwt8gLRhMmgyC9NyGZAev0dtR4JCPKpc35mE4Bkhs atEh3dQiC15Wq3Rgz8pUDNPx+ZhP2FohLQq4CuyPiK+wQ3fYD1loCyqjHEkE68mR6aFf +As2OXLaeNodd1NIqcpl9w/r6cQmoZd9TIIP9X3mD4XtHh69HoS20GjYuH8yoRJI3Htv 1byBHfzX6a5qN2kYW5ey8sRtGryP0h8UFc5P8BxzlFmSZQvNP8mk19tmOjZXfPmmpzVd q+Ly9HdfKGxIG/l1/HtRBHQcfciLjcl+V9ShLLbq2Sjivmwb4U1A1y++rK3qgshLrxIp 4niw== X-Received: by 10.42.86.136 with SMTP id u8mr22309150icl.91.1419350903184; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:08:23 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.107.48.82 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:08:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87y4pyfkcl.fsf@violet.siamics.net> X-Google-Sender-Auth: xOoqaKM5_yiVROdjuGYWmObKARU X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235 X-BeenThere: bug-texinfo@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-texinfo-bounces+gnu-bug-texinfo2=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.texinfo.bugs:6980 gmane.emacs.devel:180574 Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > >>>> In this snippet, I count 2 instances of improper tag nesting, > > >> I count just a single one, but yes, that second

surely > >> invalidates the fragment. > > >

is improper* nesting in my book. All paired tags SHOULD** > > be explicitly closed. > > > * note I did not say =E2=80=9Cinvalid=E2=80=9D > > Yes; but /I/ did. And the HTML5 TR agrees with me on that [1]: So one is

and the other is

. > As for the software that I=E2=80=99m not the principal developer = of, =E2=80=93 > I=E2=80=99d accept any output that does conform to the standards. Hmm. I would accept *for my own use* any output that conforms to the standards, but I would be hesitant to distribute that output. > > [@t and @verb] > > Given that either command is probably currently used for code > fragments anyway, using (possibly with a class) sounds > like a better solution. No objection. > =E2=80=A6 The question is: is it still necessary to offer HTML 3 > compatibility in the generated documents? Whyfor? HTML 4.0 was blessed seventeen years ago. HTML 4.01, fifteen years ago. HTML 5, a couple months ago.