On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 01:05:29AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> It is not the only change. There are actually quite a bit of changes,
> the validation as HTML5 with the new DOCTYPE is not very good.
Could we (you) use the HTML4 DTD to validate texi2any's output? Is that
what you did before?
Pl
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 07:24:01AM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 01:05:29AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > It is not the only change. There are actually quite a bit of changes,
> > the validation as HTML5 with the new DOCTYPE is not very good.
>
> Could we (you) use the HTM
> On Dec 20, 2021, at 10:43, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> Is there even a reason to move to HTML5 at all? Texinfo produces documents,
> not Web apps. What does HTML5 bring to the proverbial table that HTML4 lacks?
I don't understand your focus on "web apps". "Web apps" predate HTML5. The
ad
Gavin Smith wrote:
[...]
It's questionable how useful it is to have a version number in a file
format if reading software is not going to use it (apparently just
"" is needed to turn off "quirks mode" but browsers
pay no attention to the DTD beyond that). I doubt that a doctype
declaration would
Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 08:01:50PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
I would suggest staying with HTML4; it is upwards compatible in that an
HTML5 parser should generally be able to read it, and the HTML4 DOCTYPE
actually declares a version, instead of the "eternal now" HTML5
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 08:01:50PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> I would suggest staying with HTML4; it is upwards compatible in that an
> HTML5 parser should generally be able to read it, and the HTML4 DOCTYPE
> actually declares a version, instead of the "eternal now" HTML5 uses. That
> may
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 03:46:20PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:24AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> > Is there a place *now* where HTML4 is a requirement ? HTML5 is the only
> > *current* standard and does not specifically target web applications.
> >
>
> We
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 11:17:43AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> > I would suggest staying with HTML4; it is upwards compatible in that an
> > HTML5 parser should generally be able to read it, and the HTML4 DOCTYPE
> > actually declares a version, instead of the "eternal now" HTML5 uses.
> On Dec 19, 2021, at 11:01, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> Gavin Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:24AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a place *now* where HTML4 is a requirement ? HTML5 is the only
>>> *current* standard and does not specifically target web ap
Gavin Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:24AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
Is there a place *now* where HTML4 is a requirement ? HTML5 is the only
*current* standard and does not specifically target web applications.
We output HTML4 to get some flexibility in the outp
On 12/18/21 07:46, Gavin Smith wrote:
We output HTML4 to get some flexibility in the output, but I am not sure
how useful the HTML4 doctype declaration is any more and perhaps we should
switch to the simpler HTML5 "" header. It looks like we are
trying to conform to a standard that nobody car
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:08:24AM +0900, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
> Is there a place *now* where HTML4 is a requirement ? HTML5 is the only
> *current* standard and does not specifically target web applications.
>
We output HTML4 to get some flexibility in the output, but I am not sure
how
12 matches
Mail list logo
