Re: Strange tag: <o:p>

You need to also specify "--clean yes"

At 05:20 AM 10/14/2002 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* 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 Monday, 14 October 2002 12:37:46 UTC