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

Re: Meta Generator tag in Tidy's output

From: <html-tidy@war-of-the-worlds.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:45:38 -0600
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCD544559.4C3AE379-ON86256872.00307AAB@rfdinc.com>

Barney Wol <Barney.Wol@noctua.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>    Back in December Dan Kohn requested you include a Meta
> Generator tag in Tidy's output, and you replied:

>> ...It would need to be modified slightly, since href is not an
>> allowed attribute for meta.

> There was universal approval to the idea in this list, and I'm
> pleased to see that the 13th January version incorporates a simpler
> version of what Dan suggested:
>
> <META NAME="generator" CONTENT="HTML Tidy, see www.w3.org">
>
> Would there be advantage in including the version number (and release
date)?

I'd say it may be possible.  However, the only "version" number we have is
the latest release date.  However, I recommend that the reporting of
software and version be done in a manner akin to the syntax for User-Agent,
i.e. product/version (comment):  CONTENT="HTML-Tidy/13jan00
(http://www.w3.org/)" (though I'd prefer HTML-Tidy/2000-01-13 barring an
actual version number, partly because it is a nice unambiguous date format
and that, well, two-digit years are evil).

Using an HTTP-EQUIV="User-Agent" META tag would not be proper since that
header is already used by the server and HTML-Tidy isn't a User-Agent in
that sense.

> I see that the W3C's own front page has a couple of Meta tags with
> full URI references, for example:

>| <META http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1"http://www.classify.org/safesurf/" l gen true for "http://www.w3.org" by
>| "philipd@w3.org" r (SS~~000 1 SS~~100 1))'>

> Is this valid, thus somewhat contradicting your original statement,
> or has the W3C webmaster got it wrong? :-)

Those aren't HREF attributes, but merely CDATA text including in part URL
syntax.  There's nothing preventing having http:// in the generator META
tag, except maybe avoiding confusion that URLs have any meaning in HTML in
such places.

> Incidentally, Tidy replaces the double-quite marks in the second and
> third lines of the above example by &quot; - is that correct?

Um, it's not _incorrect_ (in that it is also not incorrect to replace every
character in that or any other attribute value with numerical character
references) but it is unnecessary and possibly troublesome for PICS
interpreters.  (They should be able to handle the &quot;s, but perhaps HTML
Tidy should avoid converting " to &quot; when ' is used to quote the
attribute value (which is legal).  I haven't checked, but it may also need
to include a check to translate ' to &#39; when ' is used to quote an
attribute.
Received on Friday, 24 March 2000 13:15:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:43 GMT