W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: Bugs/suggestions

From: <html-tidy@war-of-the-worlds.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:45:55 -0600
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF671BDE38.01F1EA85-ON86256887.005F1CDD@rfdinc.com>

"Parsons, Rick" <rick.parsons@eds.com> wrote:

> I think that perhaps a fundamental problem highlighted by this posting
> some others of recent weeks is that tidy is getting schizophrenic.
> It is not sure whether it is a
> Pretty-lister
> HTML validator
> HTML corrector
> Standards evangelist
> CSS generator
> Slide show presenter
> Perhaps if some functions were peeled off (from the bottom)it would not
> suffer from these conflicts of design.

How about calling it a regenerator?  I expect much of the purpose of HTML
Tidy is to work on markup generated by another program which attempts
WYSIWYG and does so with invalid markup.  Tidy doesn't generate the markup,
it rather regenerates it.

I think it would be a useful umbrella term for those functions.

As to the other comment:

> I can't support this suggestion to use the meta generator tag to control
> tidy behaviour. My editor (optionally) puts in a generator line but the
> content of the HTML is entirely manual and in user control. It doesn't
> dictate how you write the code, just demonstrates the results. So from
> point of view it should be treated as a "by hand" creator.

Certain programs habitually generate the same errors.  If detecting the
generator assists in disambiguating a markup error with regard to the
intention behind the error, detecting the original generator from the META
tag would be very useful.  Not the by-hand vs. by-machine difference as
originally suggested but rather differentiating different machines'
behaviors and intents.
Received on Friday, 24 March 2000 12:47:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:47 UTC