W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Strange tag: <o:p>

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 05:20:28 +0200
To: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@rcn.com>
Cc: html-tidy@w3.org
Message-ID: <3ddd359e.369157440@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Charles Reitzel wrote:
>> > The "o:p" stand for the p tag inside the o namespace.  Is a namespace by
>> > that name defined anywhere in the file?  You can recognize it by the xmlns
>> > prefix.
>> > Most probably it's a left over from a faulty XSL transformation.
>> > Without seeing the file it's a bit difficult to tell you why Tidy does not
>> > mark all of them as errors.  Probably it's the order of the tags that makes
>> > them faulty or not.  ex. <o:p> inside <body> can be excepted, but outside
>> > <body> not.

>Word2000 will use the o: namespace prefix (o for Office).  Using 
>--word-2000 yes should also fix the problem.  This option will also clean 
>up a bunch of the cruft Office puts in HTML files.  Often used with --clean 
>and --bare.

Hmm.

  % tidylib --word-2000 yes
  <o:p>...</o:p>
  line 1 column 1 - Warning: <o:p> is not approved by W3C
  line 1 column 1 - Warning: inserting missing 'title' element
  ^Z
  Info: Document content looks like HTML proprietary
  2 warnings, 0 errors were found!
  
  <html>
  <head>
    <meta content=
    "HTML Tidy for Windows (vers 1st October 2002), see www.w3.org"
    name="generator">
  
    <title></title>
  </head>
  
  <body>
    <o:p>...</o:p>
  </body>
  </html>

Is this really intended? Does it need a proper xmlns:o to work? Or am I
encountering a bug? Without --word-2000 I get

  line 1 column 1 - Error: <o:p> is not recognized!
  line 1 column 1 - Warning: discarding unexpected <o:p>
  line 1 column 1 - Warning: plain text isn't allowed in <head> elements
  line 1 column 1 - Warning: inserting missing 'title' element
  line 1 column 9 - Warning: discarding unexpected </o:p>

That's even worse. And another one, using --word-2000 I also get

  Info: Doctype given is "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"
  Info: Document content looks like HTML 3.2

Neither is true; the first reminds me to a bug I really thought I had
fixed and my May 2002 standalone build does not tell me about any given
document type declaration; Did you miss that bug fix when building the
library code?

regards.
Received on Sunday, 13 October 2002 23:19:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:48 UTC