W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: does "show-body-only" also mean "accept-body-only"?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:15:37 +0200
To: Achim Schaefer <Achim.Schaefer@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Cc: html-tidy@w3.org
Message-ID: <3ebe8545.37366359@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Achim Schaefer wrote:
>can anybody (maybe somebody of the tidy developers) tell me wether it is 
>meant to be correct that tidy accepts "body-only" html as input without 
>complaints when I use the option "show-body-only"?

Prior to any element in the body a valid HTML document requires a
document type declaration and a title element. Tidy never complained
about an absent document type declaration, leaving the title element.
In parser.c:ParseHead(...) Tidy will indeed not warn about the missing
title element if --show-body-only had been specified, but Tidy will warn
about all other errors in the header, e.g. <html foo=bar><p>... hence I
consider this a bug. It makes small sense to complain about all but this
error.

>I welcome this behaviour, but I would like to make sure that it is 
>intentional. So if I check out a newer version from cvs, should I fear that 
>it changes?

There were several feature requests on means for fragmentary parsing,
once someone implements such a feature... I've changed this in CVS, Tidy
will now warn about missing title elements even if --show-body-only is
specified.
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 11:15:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:54 GMT