Re: org-mode Publishing fails xhtml validation and LibreJS test.

[Colin Baxter <m43cap@yandex.com>]

Dear Time,

>>>>> Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

    > Colin Baxter <m43cap@yandex.com> writes:

    >> Hello,
    >> 
    >> When publishing, org-mode inserts the following javascript in the
    >> xhtml file:
    >> 
    >> #+begin_src js <script type="text/javascript"> // @license
    >> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e95b018ef3580986a04669f1b5879592219e2a7a&dn=public-domain.txt
    >> Public Domain <!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/ function
    >> CodeHighlightOn(elem, id) { var target =
    >> document.getElementById(id); if(null != target) {
    >> elem.classList.add("code-highlighted");
    >> target.classList.add("code-highlighted"); } } function
    >> CodeHighlightOff(elem, id) { var target =
    >> document.getElementById(id); if(null != target) {
    >> elem.classList.remove("code-highlighted");
    >> target.classList.remove("code-highlighted"); } } /*]]>*///--> //
    >> @license-end </script> #+end_src
    >> 
    >> There are issues with this script.
    >> 
    >> 1. The script gives errors in XHTML 1.0 Strict validation. For
    >> example, the line beginning //@license ... gives errors of the
    >> type: a. cannot generate system identifier for general entity
    >> "dn" b. general entity "dn" not defined and no default entity
    >> c. reference not terminated by REFC delimiter etc.
    >> 
    >> 2. The script fails the LibreJS (gnu.org/software/librejs)
    >> tests. This can be tested by opining the page in icecat.
    >> 
    >> In order to pass XHTML and LibreJS validation tests, I have to
    >> delete the script from my web pages by hand.
    >> 

    > Given the move to HTML5 and deprecation of XHTML, how valid are
    > XHTML compliance requirements these days? Could it be time to
    > 'reverse' the org defaults and export using HTML5 by default
    > rather than XHTML?

I believe it remains important to have XHTML compliance, a view which
would seem consistent with W3C's retention of its validation service.

    > Would it be sufficient to just have the license information
    > embedded as a simple comment?

I think this might be a good idea. And if it gets rid of the non-free
javascript (as defined by LibreJS and therefore by gnu) then so much the
better.

Best wishes,

Colin Baxter.



Colin Baxter
URL: http://www.Colin-Baxter.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG fingerprint: 68A8 799C 0230 16E7 BF68  2A27 BBFA 2492 91F5 41C8
---------------------------------------------------------------------