W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Tidy and HTML5

From: Adrian Sandor <aditsu@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <461102.23735.qm@web32401.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Keryx Web <webmaster@keryx.se>, html-tidy@w3.org, WHATWG Help <help@lists.whatwg.org>
----- Original Message ----

> From: Keryx Web <webmaster@keryx.se>
> 2010-11-26 09:36,  Adrian Sandor skrev:
> > As I mentioned before, my main concern is about  bug fixes. I don't care 
> > about HTML5 support at this time.
> >  (But if somebody else has a patch, I will be happy too)
> > 
> Here is  the deal with HTML5.

Hi, I'm still trying to figure out the connection between my message and your 
Are you perhaps trying to say that I am headed down the wrong path because the 
code in Tidy is garbage and not worth fixing, and it should be replaced with an 
html5 parser, which I SHOULD care about instead?

> Simply put, there is no "opt out" of HTML5.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sure, browsers may start using an HTML5 
parser. But I don't think a majority of websites will switch to HTML5 anytime 
soon. And even if they do, not many will break compatibility with HTML 4.x/older 

> Thus, I do not  see any future in a tool that does not rely on the HTML5 
>parsing algorithm. Tidy  can not grow from its current code base, but needs to 
>have the same html5lib at  its core that is in the HTML5 validator, which 
>basically is the same as the one  being used in Firefox 4.

I disagree with both statements. But I think there could be some value in 
starting fresh with an HTML5 parser.

> The *main* feature that Tidy has today, is the ability to handle  templates, by 
>preservering/ignoring PHP or other server side code.

I completely disagree. I'd say that the main features are its ability to 
transform broken HTML into valid markup and produce a node tree, while reporting 
the problems and corrections. I couldn't care less about php tags, but different 
people have different needs.

> From a maintenance and bug fixing POV, I see *huge* wins in having  a common 
>base for Tidy, the HTML5 validator and HTML parsing in  Gecko.
> But the actual possibility thereof is beyond my technical  knowledge to 

Well, I don't know about that. If somebody can do it, great. I'm not going to do 
any major development work in C; IF I'll do anything about HTML5, it will be in 
But for now, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, I'm interested in 
getting some bugs fixed.
If that's not going to happen, then I'll have to treat JTidy as a fork rather 
than a port.


Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 15:34:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:58 UTC