Re: Footnote output not valid.

[Waylan Limberg]

FYI, I found an examples page in the microformats wiki:


Because of the inclusion of the 's' in the url, I didn't find it right
away. In any event, it documents various existing examples of footnote
implementations (including Gruber's). Interestingly none of them use
"rel" attributes (or "rev" for that matter). Maybe we should just drop
that usage altogether in markdown.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Waylan Limberg  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Michel Fortin  
> wrote:
>> Le 2012-08-07 à 15:43, Waylan Limberg  a écrit :
>>
>>> Of course, following markdown.pl's lead, the default is XHTML, so
>>> yeah, most will never get HTML5 output. Although, I suppose we could
>>> easily have our footnote extension not add the `rel` and `rev`
>>> attributes to footnotes when HTML5 is selected.
>>
>> Well, I'm not so sure rel=footnote is actually almost valid. The HTML specs 
>> gives a few normalized values, then says that other values must be 
>> registered on this microformat.org page:
>> 
>>
>> rel=footnote is there on that page, in the POSH usage section, citing 
>> Markdown preprocessors as the source. But it's missing a spec. Someone would 
>> have to go through the microformat process and create a spec for it and 
>> it'll become valid.
>
> True, but it is also listed in the "dropped" section. If one it
> proposing a spec for anything that has previously been dropped, there
> is a larger hurdle to jump. For example, the proposal needs to explore
> why it was previously dropped and why that reason does not apply to
> the current proposal. And if I understand it correctly, certain
> reasons (for previously being dropped) will cause all future proposals
> to be rejected automatically, while other reasons may be open to
> reconsideration. Unfortunately, whoever added "footnote" to the
> "dropped" list left the reason as "unknown". So it looks like it might
> be a lot of work to submit an acceptable proposal.
>
>> Rev is definitely deprecated however. I don't think it'll come back. If 
>> someone defines a spec for rel=footnote, it could also define what is the 
>> opposite of rel=footnote and replace the rev=footnote with something else 
>> such as rel=footnote-ref. Then the path forward might be to include both 
>> rev=footnote rel=footnote-ref, unless someone has specified a flag to 
>> prevent the rev attribute from showing up.
>
> But until that happens, our markdown implementations are outputting
> invalid html. And according to the page linked above, they should not
> be used at all meaning we should be removing any occurrences of
> "rel=footnote" from our markdown implementations until such a proposal
> is approved. Of course, that only applies when outputting HTML5.
>
> --
> 
> \X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
> Waylan Limberg



-- 

\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
Waylan Limberg
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Footnote output not valid.

[Waylan Limberg]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Michel Fortin  wrote:
> Le 2012-08-07 à 15:43, Waylan Limberg  a écrit :
>
>> Of course, following markdown.pl's lead, the default is XHTML, so
>> yeah, most will never get HTML5 output. Although, I suppose we could
>> easily have our footnote extension not add the `rel` and `rev`
>> attributes to footnotes when HTML5 is selected.
>
> Well, I'm not so sure rel=footnote is actually almost valid. The HTML specs 
> gives a few normalized values, then says that other values must be registered 
> on this microformat.org page:
> 
>
> rel=footnote is there on that page, in the POSH usage section, citing 
> Markdown preprocessors as the source. But it's missing a spec. Someone would 
> have to go through the microformat process and create a spec for it and it'll 
> become valid.

True, but it is also listed in the "dropped" section. If one it
proposing a spec for anything that has previously been dropped, there
is a larger hurdle to jump. For example, the proposal needs to explore
why it was previously dropped and why that reason does not apply to
the current proposal. And if I understand it correctly, certain
reasons (for previously being dropped) will cause all future proposals
to be rejected automatically, while other reasons may be open to
reconsideration. Unfortunately, whoever added "footnote" to the
"dropped" list left the reason as "unknown". So it looks like it might
be a lot of work to submit an acceptable proposal.

> Rev is definitely deprecated however. I don't think it'll come back. If 
> someone defines a spec for rel=footnote, it could also define what is the 
> opposite of rel=footnote and replace the rev=footnote with something else 
> such as rel=footnote-ref. Then the path forward might be to include both 
> rev=footnote rel=footnote-ref, unless someone has specified a flag to prevent 
> the rev attribute from showing up.

But until that happens, our markdown implementations are outputting
invalid html. And according to the page linked above, they should not
be used at all meaning we should be removing any occurrences of
"rel=footnote" from our markdown implementations until such a proposal
is approved. Of course, that only applies when outputting HTML5.

-- 

\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
Waylan Limberg
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Footnote output not valid.

[Alan Hogan]

On Aug 7, 2012, at 7:30 PM, Michel Fortin  wrote:

> Well, I'm not so sure rel=footnote is actually almost valid. The HTML specs 
> gives a few normalized values, then says that other values must be registered 
> on this microformat.org page:
> 
> 
> rel=footnote is there on that page, in the POSH usage section, citing 
> Markdown preprocessors as the source. But it's missing a spec. Someone would 
> have to go through the microformat process and create a spec for it and it'll 
> become valid.
> 
> Rev is definitely deprecated however. I don't think it'll come back. If 
> someone defines a spec for rel=footnote, it could also define what is the 
> opposite of rel=footnote and replace the rev=footnote with something else 
> such as rel=footnote-ref. Then the path forward might be to include both 
> rev=footnote rel=footnote-ref, unless someone has specified a flag to prevent 
> the rev attribute from showing up.

That makes a lot of sense and sounds like the best plan to me.

Alan Hogan
Sent via virtual pigeon

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Footnote output not valid.

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2012-08-07 à 15:43, Waylan Limberg  a écrit :

> Of course, following markdown.pl's lead, the default is XHTML, so
> yeah, most will never get HTML5 output. Although, I suppose we could
> easily have our footnote extension not add the `rel` and `rev`
> attributes to footnotes when HTML5 is selected.

Well, I'm not so sure rel=footnote is actually almost valid. The HTML specs 
gives a few normalized values, then says that other values must be registered 
on this microformat.org page:


rel=footnote is there on that page, in the POSH usage section, citing Markdown 
preprocessors as the source. But it's missing a spec. Someone would have to go 
through the microformat process and create a spec for it and it'll become valid.

Rev is definitely deprecated however. I don't think it'll come back. If someone 
defines a spec for rel=footnote, it could also define what is the opposite of 
rel=footnote and replace the rev=footnote with something else such as 
rel=footnote-ref. Then the path forward might be to include both rev=footnote 
rel=footnote-ref, unless someone has specified a flag to prevent the rev 
attribute from showing up.


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.ca
http://michelf.ca/

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Footnote output not valid.

[Waylan Limberg]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Michel Fortin  wrote:
> Le 2012-08-06 à 21:07, Waylan Limberg  a écrit :
>
>> I just received a report [1] that the footnote output we use in
>> Python-Markdown (an exact copy of PHP Markdown Extra [3]) is not valid
>> HTML [3]. If you notice he's using HTML5. At least the footnote syntax
>> does valid on XHTML1 or HTML4. Anyway, any suggestions on how the
>> various footnote implementations want to move forward with this?
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/waylan/Python-Markdown/issues/129
>> [2]: http://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/#fn-output
>> [3]: 
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.posativ.org%2F2012%2Flinkschleuder-26%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
>
>
> Another link you might want to check out:
> 
>
> I'm not actually sure what to do about this. One idea is to have a master 
> switch making all output HTML5-conformant. The real problem is that some 
> people might be relying on the current markup, stylesheets at least. So that 
> switch should be disabled by default, which would ensure almost no one gets 
> HTML5 markup.
>

Interestingly, in Python-Markdown we have an output-format [1] switch
which can be set to various versions of HTML and/or XHTML. Although,
all HTML versions get the same output and all XHTML versions get the
same output. The only difference (right now) between HTML and XHTML
are things like `` verses ``.

Of course, following markdown.pl's lead, the default is XHTML, so
yeah, most will never get HTML5 output. Although, I suppose we could
easily have our footnote extension not add the `rel` and `rev`
attributes to footnotes when HTML5 is selected. Seems silly though -
to have a less semantic document because an unfinished standard has
depreciated a commonly used syntax, especially when no browser will
trip on it - just for the sake of having a document validated by an
"experimental" validator.

[1]: http://packages.python.org/Markdown/reference.html#output_format

-- 

\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
Waylan Limberg
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Footnote output not valid.

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2012-08-06 à 21:07, Waylan Limberg  a écrit :

> I just received a report [1] that the footnote output we use in
> Python-Markdown (an exact copy of PHP Markdown Extra [3]) is not valid
> HTML [3]. If you notice he's using HTML5. At least the footnote syntax
> does valid on XHTML1 or HTML4. Anyway, any suggestions on how the
> various footnote implementations want to move forward with this?
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/waylan/Python-Markdown/issues/129
> [2]: http://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/#fn-output
> [3]: 
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.posativ.org%2F2012%2Flinkschleuder-26%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0


Another link you might want to check out:


I'm not actually sure what to do about this. One idea is to have a master 
switch making all output HTML5-conformant. The real problem is that some people 
might be relying on the current markup, stylesheets at least. So that switch 
should be disabled by default, which would ensure almost no one gets HTML5 
markup.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.ca
http://michelf.ca/

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Footnote output not valid

[Alan Hogan]

I find it hard to understand why rel=footnote would have been dropped.   

In general, I do see the value in only using registered rel attribute values. 
You can’t propose native rel functionality if it’s seeing much use to mean 
something else.  

However, since rel=footnote *was* valid at some point, and *has* seen 
widespread adoption, I can see no harm whatsoever in continuing to output it. 
It nicely allows its styling via CSS3 attribute selections.  

Similarly, if `rev` is altogether deprecated, well, there is no harm in 
continuing to output it. Browsers cannot and will never choke on that – the 
worst they can do is ignore it.  

Alan

PS I believe the unfinished nature of HTML5 is not a valid reason to care about 
HTML5, but it *is* probably just cause not to worry about small "errors" like 
this when validating against it.  


On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Mark wrote:

> > I just received a report [1] that the footnote output we use in
> > Python-Markdown (an exact copy of PHP Markdown Extra [3]) is not valid
> > HTML [3]. If you notice he's using HTML5. At least the footnote syntax
> > does valid on XHTML1 or HTML4. Anyway, any suggestions on how the
> > various footnote implementations want to move forward with this?
> >  
> > [1]: https://github.com/waylan/Python-Markdown/issues/129
> > [2]: http://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/#fn-output
> > [3]: 
> > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.posativ.org%2F2012%2Flinkschleuder-26%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
> >  
>  
>  
> HTML5 is not finished, not finalised, and probably never will be (or at
> least the HTML.next stuff won't ever be). At this point, validating to
> perfect HTML5 is a pointless exercise as there is no such thing.
> There are two issues in this case
> 1) that the rel attribute can no longer be whatever you want. They
> require you to 'register' the values. Except that "footnote" has been
> dropped [1]. The whole affair of registering values is backwards if you
> ask me, but there you go. Personally, I would just ignore this issue.
> HTML5 is in too much of a flux to care about minor things like this.
> 2) rev attribute is obsolete. That's easy, replace it with
> rel="footnoteanchor" or similar, except that then you'll have to
> register it etc. But only if you really care about HTML5, which is not
> finished, and won't be finished for another 20 years or more.  
>  
> The main thing is, that HTML5 isn't finished, and the semantics are
> subject to change. I would suggest continuing to target finished
> standards, and if you really care, remove the rel and rev attributes
> which will validate in both HTML4 and HTML5, but will result in fewer
> semantics (something the HTML5 people don't seem to care too much about
> anyway).
>  
> [1]: http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#dropped
>  
>  
> ___
> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
> Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
>  
>  


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

re: Footnote output not valid

[Mark]

> I just received a report [1] that the footnote output we use in
> Python-Markdown (an exact copy of PHP Markdown Extra [3]) is not valid
> HTML [3]. If you notice he's using HTML5. At least the footnote syntax
> does valid on XHTML1 or HTML4. Anyway, any suggestions on how the
> various footnote implementations want to move forward with this?
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/waylan/Python-Markdown/issues/129
> [2]: http://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/#fn-output
> [3]: 
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.posativ.org%2F2012%2Flinkschleuder-26%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
> 

HTML5 is not finished, not finalised, and probably never will be (or at
least the HTML.next stuff won't ever be). At this point, validating to
perfect HTML5 is a pointless exercise as there is no such thing.
There are two issues in this case
1) that the rel attribute can no longer be whatever you want. They
require you to 'register' the values. Except that "footnote" has been
dropped [1]. The whole affair of registering values is backwards if you
ask me, but there you go. Personally, I would just ignore this issue.
HTML5 is in too much of a flux to care about minor things like this.
2) rev attribute is obsolete. That's easy, replace it with
rel="footnoteanchor" or similar, except that then you'll have to
register it etc. But only if you really care about HTML5, which is not
finished, and won't be finished for another 20 years or more. 

The main thing is, that HTML5 isn't finished, and the semantics are
subject to change. I would suggest continuing to target finished
standards, and if you really care, remove the rel and rev attributes
which will validate in both HTML4 and HTML5, but will result in fewer
semantics (something the HTML5 people don't seem to care too much about
anyway).

[1]: http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#dropped


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Footnote output not valid.

[Waylan Limberg]

I just received a report [1] that the footnote output we use in
Python-Markdown (an exact copy of PHP Markdown Extra [3]) is not valid
HTML [3]. If you notice he's using HTML5. At least the footnote syntax
does valid on XHTML1 or HTML4. Anyway, any suggestions on how the
various footnote implementations want to move forward with this?

[1]: https://github.com/waylan/Python-Markdown/issues/129
[2]: http://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/#fn-output
[3]: 
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.posativ.org%2F2012%2Flinkschleuder-26%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

-- 

\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
Waylan Limberg
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss