Correction: I see now that we're using Frameset doctype for the parent page and Transitional for the pages within frames. I misunderstood that. My bad.
On Jul 25, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Nick Williams wrote: > Point of interest: JavaDoc uses the HTML 4 "Loose" specification, not the > HTML 4 "Strict" specification. By using frames, JavaDoc is in violation of > the HTML 4.01 Loose specification (see below). > > There are void elements and there are empty elements. > > Void elements are elements that ARE NOT ALLOWED to have content. They are: > area, base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, input, keygen, link, meta, > param, source, track, wbr, and some foreign/extension elements. > > Empty elements are elements that ARE ALLOWED to have content but don't, for > whatever reason. This is any element not listed above. > > In HTML (all versions), empty elements CANNOT be self-closing, they MUST have > start and end tags (like <script scr="foo"></script>) because they MAY have > content. Void elements MUST NOT have start and end tags because they MAY NOT > have content. Browsers MAY permit self-closing void tags, and all browsers > do. There is no syntax difference between Strict, Transitional (Loose), and > Frameset. Strict prohibits frame sets, presentational elements (like <font>), > and deprecated elements. Transitional (Loose) allows presentational elements > and deprecated elements but prohibits frame sets. Frameset allows > presentational elements, deprecated elements, and frame sets. /If/ the > motivation behind "self-closing element not allowed" is abiding by the spec, > then we should get rid of frames, too. > > In XHTML (all versions), both empty elements and void elements MUST EITHER > have a start and an end tag OR be self-closing > (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.6). Furthermore, the spec recommends for > compatibility reasons that you always put a space before the forward slash in > a self-closing element (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_2). > > Special Note: In HTML5, the SVG and MathML elements MUST EITHER have a start > and an end tag OR be self-closing. > > Nick > > On Jul 25, 2013, at 1:13 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote: > >> It all hinges on whether the tool is generating HTML 4 or HTML 5. If 4, >> then the output should be HTML 4 "strict" and this kind of input should >> either be translated or forced to be valid. >> >> If the output is going to be HTML 5 - which I suspect is going to be >> considered "premature" given the usual glacial pace of these kinds of >> changes - then perhaps it's time to revisit some other crustiness, like the >> use of frames. >> >> On 07/25/2013 12:59 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >>> Its complicated, see for example: >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3558119/are-self-closing-tags-valid-in-html5 >>> >>> The key point here is not whether its in the standard or not, but what >>> people actually *do*. >>> >>> There is no doubt in my mind that <br /> br space slash is very common >>> indeed. Its certainly my default. The javadoc validator should be as >>> lenient as browsers are in this case. >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> >>> On 25 July 2013 18:41, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 07/25/2013 12:27 PM, Nick Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My apologies if this is not the right place to address this. If so, please >>>>> forgive and direct me to the correct list. >>>>> >>>>> There are a lot of people/projects complaining about Java 8's new >>>>> "self-closing element not allowed" error when compiling JavaDoc that has >>>>> legal <br /> tags in it (just google "self-closing element not allowed" in >>>>> quotes). Some (including myself) are asking, "Why should we fix this? The >>>>> problem is not in the JavaDoc, it's in the JavDoc compiler." However, I >>>>> haven't been able to find anyone who has actually broached the subject on >>>>> any mailing lists. >>>>> >>>>> <br /> is completely legal. While it is not strictly required by the HTML >>>>> standard (unless you're using XHTML), using self-closing tags is >>>>> /preferred/ >>>>> because it's more obvious what the intention is. Perhaps most importantly, >>>>> <br /> is supported on 100% of browsers and is used throughout JavaDoc all >>>>> over the place. I have a feeling that once more projects start compiling >>>>> on >>>>> a released Java 8, this is going to make a fair number of people angry >>>>> that >>>>> hey have to "fix" (read: needlessly change) potentially thousands of >>>>> classes' worth of JavaDoc. >>>>> >>>>> What was the motivation behind the new "self-closing element not allowed" >>>>> check and how can we make it go away? >>>> >>>> >>>> Not really having a stake in this, I just want to observe a couple things. >>>> First, from what I can see, the HTML 4.x specifications make no reference >>>> to >>>> self-closing elements or their syntactical realization. As far as I can >>>> tell (not being any kind of SGML expert), self-closing elements are not >>>> valid or meaningful HTML according to its SGML definition. >>>> >>>> Finally, even if they were allowed, the BR tag is explicitly defined to >>>> forbid an end tag; self-closing elements imply an end tag (at least they do >>>> in XML, which appears to be the next-nearest concrete specification that >>>> has >>>> anything to say on the matter). >>>> >>>> See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-BR for more info. >>>> >>>> So I'm curious when you say "using self-closing tags is /preferred/", do >>>> you >>>> have any sources to cite? >>>> -- >>>> - DML >> >> >> -- >> - DML >
