W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > July to September 2004

Requesting w32 tidyui.exe command line information

From: Jason Robinson <JRobinson@KitchenPages.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:54:09 +1000
Message-ID: <007201c48206$2d7b81a0$16ffa8c0@kitchenpages.net>
To: <html-tidy@w3.org>

Thankyou Jim, your post has helped me solve a big issue I had with tidy.

If possible, could you or another tidy list member please post the link to a
page with the command line arguements; like as in your post.

Many thanks in advance,
Jason Robinson.

PS:  The conversion worked for tidyui.exe with all tidyui.exe xml config
options set to 'no' which gave a resulting html 3.2 page from xml. (sorry I
can't help in regards to your issues)

PSS:  The previous post I made in this topic tidy-html for reply to a 'save
button in word' was so wrong. opps - but; It now seems possible that
tidyui.exe accepts command line arguements (using somewhat complex macro's
in word to startup tidy for conversions).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Higson" <jh@333.org>
To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:38 PM
Subject: Unexpected behavoir converting XHTML -> HTML


>
> On my Apache server I use content negotiation to send out the XHTML pages,
so
> if the browser recognises it (anything except M$IE) it gets
> 'application/xhtml+xml", otherwise the pages are served as "text/html". I
do
> this by having a bunch of files named like foo.xhtml and symlink to them
like
> foo.html -> foo.xhtml.
>
> Now I'm wondering if serving XHTML with the MIME type "text/html" is such
a
> good idea, so I want to change foo.html to be in HTML 4.01 format, rather
> than a symlink to an XHTML page.
>
> So I run:
> $ tidy -ashtml -qi foo.xhtml > foo.html
>
> But the file created is NOT really HTML, for a start it has the XML
headers:
>
> ?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN">
> <html lang="en-GB">
> <head>
>
> Which I don't think should be there for HTML 4.01.
> It is also missing a character encoding, while I think it should have used
> utf8, since that is the default for XML documents.
>
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2004 13:50:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:54 UTC