On 21 Oct 2007, at 10:23, Nathan Weizenbaum wrote: > The problem with Haml throwing any errors for invalid HTML is that it > creates the expectation that Haml will detect other errors. I don't > want > to build an HTML validator into Haml, nor do I want to have people > expect one to be there when it really isn't.
Point taken. Of course HTML validity is a larger and hairier issue than just whether inline-level elements contain block-level ones (and even the DTD can't express all of the syntactic HTML validity constraints) so clearly this isn't an area you want to get into. However, if you're deciding to pay attention to a specific part of HTML's semantics (inline vs block) it's not an inherently bad idea to do so correctly, with the caveat that you're not making any claims about any other aspect of HTML. It seems like this is the stance that Haml is already taking with tag generation, attribute quoting etc (i.e. you've made it impossible to generate badly-nested or unclosed tags, or attributes with unescaped quotes), so this would just be another incremental chipping-away at the problem; Haml already looks after your tag nesting and attribute quoting, and now it knows about inline/block tags too, so it won't let you do fundamentally broken things with them either. Cheers, -Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
