- 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
* 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 UTC