W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > January to March 2015

Tidy users: please provide feedback about expected behaviours

From: James Derry <balthisar@mac.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 10:57:02 +0800
Message-id: <2C4E3E40-30EF-432E-96CB-C0CAB98B0836@mac.com>
To: public-htacg@w3.org, tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net, html-tidy@w3.org
Cross-posted to
[1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-htacg/ (public-htacg@w3.org)
[2]: https://sourceforge.net/p/tidy/mailman/tidy-develop (tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net)
[3]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/html-tidy/ (html-tidy@w3.org)

Good day list subscribers:

This solicitation is to ask for your feedback on what the desired, default behaviour for Tidy should be given certain conditions.

To-date there has been some discussion about HTML5 versus previous HTML version behaviour: https://github.com/htacg/tidy-html5/issues/169

However in order to bring it to a broader audience I’m asking for your suggestions here.

The general question is this: assuming no hints from the `--doctype` option and a missing `<!DOCTYPE html> declaration, should Tidy 5.0.0 assume that it is attempting to Tidy HTML5, or a previous version of HTML? Please consider that one of Tidy’s use cases is tidying/diagnosing “snippets” of HTML, such as with the `--body-only` option, and so it’s unsafe to assume that a doctype declaration will always be present.

The assumption for Tidy’s default behaviour affects validation, particularly for anchors surrounding block level elements. The example taken from the tracker above:

<a href="l1"><p>one</p></a>

…can result in:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<a href="l1"></a>

The future (and indeed the present) is HTML5, and at first this seems like a reasonable assumption to make. On the other hand making this assumptions can _seriously_ affect backwards compatibility for legacy HTML that still lacks legacy DTD’s.

Rather than repeat all of the pros and cons here, I will direct you again to the [tracker](https://github.com/htacg/tidy-html5/issues/169) in the event you would like to see current discussion.

We welcome your feedback on any of these mailing lists, or on the github tracker.

Thank you.

Jim Derry
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 09:55:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 4 February 2018 20:38:36 UTC