W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: End of line standards

From: Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:48:48 +1200 (NZST)
Message-Id: <200007310048.MAA11324@atlas.otago.ac.nz>
To: Barney.Wol@noctua.demon.co.uk, html-tidy@w3.org
Barney Wol <Barney.Wol@noctua.demon.co.uk> wrote:
		Another contributor to the list recently pointed out that the 
	HTML spec actually specifies the DOS standard CR/LF format for best 
	compatibility.  Even though there is a small file-size overhead in 
	this old "teletype" standard, it is none-the-less the standard, and 
	said overhead is really quite small.
	
Well no, it doesn't.  Here's what it says:

	On the Internet, some platforms use carriage return line feed pairs
	for line breaks, some use just line feeds, and others just carriage
	returns.  As a result, HTML user agents should consider both
	isolated line feed and carriage return chracters as line breaks,
	with carriage return line feed pairs treated as single line breaks.

That is,
	<new line> = CR LF | CR {not followed by LF} | LF.

Concerning line break after <img src="...>,
the specification goes on to say in the very next paragraph
	A line break occurring immediately following a start tag
	should be discarded, as should a line break occurring immediately
	before an end tag.  This applies to all HTML elements without
	exception.
That is to say, any HTML user agent (browser) that treats
"<img src='foo/bar'>
and the best of luck" in any way differently from
"<img src='foo/bar'>and the best of luck"
is ***wrong***, "without exception" a line break "should be discarded"
"immediately following a start tag" such as <img...>.

Tidy is within its rights putting a line break there.
Since there are broken browsers out there, it may be unwise for Tidy
to insist on its rights, but let's be clear about where the fault lies.
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2000 20:49:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:44 GMT