Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> In any case, even tags that don't require a
> closing tag should now end with /> (presumably <br/> rather than <br> )

  That's not standard HTML.
  It's that way if you are writing XML (or apparently XHTML) but not HTML.
I think that in HTML that would be a syntax error.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> They are, as in many other case, over-interpreting the HTML 4 "Standard".
> So, again the holly and unfailable master teachers of proper web design in
> the Mozilla development group force the specification on the user no matter
> what the cost.  Hence the obvious is not to use intentionally broken
> browsers like Mozilla!

  I don't understand. If Mozilla sticks to the standard, how is it "broken"?

  Besides, it makes sense. A link starts with the <a> tag and ends with
the </a> tag. Leaving the </a> tag out is a syntax error. What should the
browser do in this case? The most correct behaviour would be, of course, to
issue an error message and refuse to show the page at all. Of course they
want to be a bit more user-friendly than that.
  If a page has a syntax error, who defines which is the correct behaviour?
Microsoft?

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3d341d0d@news.povray.org...
> Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> > In any case, even tags that don't require a
> > closing tag should now end with /> (presumably <br/> rather than <br> )
>
>   That's not standard HTML.
>   It's that way if you are writing XML (or apparently XHTML) but not HTML.
> I think that in HTML that would be a syntax error.
>

I was under the impression that xml-complient html was now considered a "good
thing".

cgi.pm for example ( a perl-module) will write <br /> and so on by default in
latest versions.

Follow-ups set.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3d341e7e@news.povray.org...
>   Besides, it makes sense. A link starts with the <a> tag and ends with
> the </a> tag. Leaving the </a> tag out is a syntax error. What should the

Not really. Browsers are expected to have the ability to infer a closing
tag when one should obviously be there. A good example would be the sequence
<tr><td>Some Text</tr>. I have left out a </td>, but any browser will infer
its presence and act as if it were supplied. This is a defined behaviour for
HTML browsers (or anything that can understand HTML).

In the case of the anchor tag with type NAME (e.g. <a name="">), there is
no 'link', as you refer above; it's an anchor, not a link, and in this case
there is no possibility of having any linked text (e.g. "<a name="foo">text</a>"
doesn't make sense).

In that case, the presence of a "</a>" is implied immediately after the <a ...>,
simply because it can't be any other way. This is the way browsers have worked
since the start, to my knowledge, and one that doesn't work that way is IMO
broken (and I don't care what the standards say, it's broken).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3d341e7e@news.povray.org...
>   I don't understand. If Mozilla sticks to the standard, how is it "broken"?

BTW the question is open as to whether or not it's standard behaviour; I didn't
say that it was, and I didn't say it wasn't. I haven't looked it up.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d341e7e@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   I don't understand. If Mozilla sticks to the standard, how is it "broken"?

Well, we could write POV-Ray 4 to expect compilers supporting the "export"
keyword in C++ and thus stick to the standard.  Get the idea?

>   Besides, it makes sense. A link starts with the <a> tag and ends with
> the </a> tag. Leaving the </a>

That is not really the problem.  the problem is that the a tag is overloaded
with two different meanings.  One is the "href" and the other the "name"
type.  They should have been two distinct tags, but unfortunately aren't the
end tags for the "name" variant of the a tag does absolutely nothing useful
and only adds clutter.  Plus it would be no problem to handle it correctly.
So why add user inconvenience.  After all, HTML was not meant as a machine
only format; it it had been there there would be no need for tags which only
consume space but a more efficient binary format could be use (one of the
many points by XML is so useless).

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> In the case of the anchor tag with type NAME (e.g. <a name="">), there is
> no 'link', as you refer above; it's an anchor, not a link, and in this case
> there is no possibility of having any linked text (e.g. "<a name="foo">text</a>"
> doesn't make sense).

  I tested with a page like this:

<html>
<head><title>Test</title></head>
<body>
<p>Line1
<a name="test1">
<p>Line2
<p>Line3
<a name="test2">test
<p>Line4
<p>Line5
</body>
</html>

  With Mozilla I don't see any odd behaviour. None of the text is underlined
or anything else. Everything seems to work as it should.
  Could someone give me a (small) example where the reported misbehaviour
happens?

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> They should have been two distinct tags, but unfortunately aren't the
> end tags for the "name" variant of the a tag does absolutely nothing useful
> and only adds clutter.  Plus it would be no problem to handle it correctly.
> So why add user inconvenience.

  As I wrote in the other article, I just tested the <a name="..."> behaviour
with Mozilla, and see no misbehaviour (ie. Mozilla does not need the </a> as
reported). I don't understand.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d342fad@news.povray.org>,
 "Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
>In that case, the presence of a "</a>" is implied immediately after the <a 
>...>,
>simply because it can't be any other way. This is the way browsers have worked
>since the start, to my knowledge, and one that doesn't work that way is IMO
>broken (and I don't care what the standards say, it's broken).

No, this is not the way things have worked from the start, nor is it the 
way things should work now. Anchoring was originally expected to anchor 
text: the original GUI browser (Mosaic) would crash if a page tried to 
anchor nothing.

If you look in O'Reilly's HTML Definitive Guide, you'll see that their 
anchor examples enclose text. (see p. 197, section 6.3, of the fourth 
edition).

Anchoring around something is more useful for computer-oriented browsing 
than anchoring around nothing. I have used this in my own scripts in the 
past, and suspect other people have as well.

As we move away from anchoring with <a name="...">text</a> and towards 
anchoring via IDs in existing tags, most anchors will once again enclose 
text.

An anchor needs a closing tag in the same way as <em> and <strong> need 
closing tags. There isn't any "implied ending" except perhaps at the end 
of a paragraph-level tag.

Jerry
-- 
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d3433e0@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   With Mozilla I don't see any odd behaviour. None of the text is underlined
> or anything else. Everything seems to work as it should.

Not surprising as you alway place it at the end of a structure element.
Even Mozilla isn't _that_ stupid!

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message