Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: >In HTML, the requirement for errors of this form (<input /> instead of ><input >), is that the parser *must* recover in a way that forces it to >treat it as "<input >" -- it has to ignore the invalid characters and >recover in a particular, well-defined fashion.
Do you have a reference for that? It is my understanding that there is, indeed, a well-defined meaning the SGML specification for HTML: the slash inside a tag introduces a so-called "shorttag". This treats everything up until the next slash as the element's contents. Browsers don't treat it as such, but that is a deviation of what the standard asks them to do, not error recovery per se. >That's why non-validity for HTML, when it's this kind of non-validity >isn't a really big deal. It's cosmetic, rather than tragic. I disagree. When I develop web pages (using Django or otherwise) I use the Firefox HTML validator extension. This helps me write standards-compliant HTML -- a big red cross indicates a problem in my page. It is annoying if that big red cross no longer indicates anything (there might be problems *I* caused, or it might just be Django stuff). As a result, I decided to switch to XHTML when developing with Django -- also not fully standards compliant (the doctype is wrong), but at least when I see a big red cross I know *I* did something wrong... Before I decided to switch and stop worrying about it, I also wondered why Django didn't make this configurable. It didn't seem like a lot of work, but I haven't really researched it. Gertjan. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
