Re: new drafts

> I went through this in bld and made sure that all text inside ul/ol is also
> inside the li-tags.
> Can u check if this fixes the html in the output version?

It does appear to fix the HTML lists.

I did a new round of drafts.  (July 28).

BLD (along with FLD and UCR) still has many HTML validation errors,
though.  Add ",validate" to the URL to see the errors...

How are the ,checklinks reports coming? 

      -- Sandro

> michael
> 
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:28:13 -0400
> Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > The numbering seems ok in the wiki.
> > 
> > That depends on your browser.  Since the page is invalid (not
> > well-formed) HTML, its meaning/rendering is not defined by the specs.
> > Different software handles the situation differently.
> > 
> > The W3C publication rules require that all publications be valid HTML,
> > so my toolchain runs "tidy" [1] which tries to repair any invalid HTML.
> > In this case, its repair algorithm does not do what we'd like.  But, of
> > course, the solution is to fix the wiki page.
> > 
> > In this case, it looks to me like there is content inside lists
> > (<ol>...</ol>) which is not inside list-items tags (<li>...</li>).
> > That should never be the case.
> > 
> >      -- Sandro
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://tidy.sourceforge.net/
> > 
> > > Maybe it is a problem with the html conversion tool?
> > > 
> > > michael
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:15:04 -0400
> > > Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There's a new set of snapshots of all six documents, slated for
> > > > publication next week, linked from the WG homepage.
> > > > 
> > > > (BLD still has some invalid HTML, of which one symptom is the broken
> > > > numbering in section 6.1.)
> > > > 
> > > >     -- Sandro
> > > > 
> > > > 
> >

Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 19:29:32 UTC