From: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large SGML Cleanup |
Date: | 2010-11-03 23:10:26 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=+yacNLFiejf=uO1kDHKmKjfV+AhKmf=1ATcRa@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On tis, 2010-11-02 at 22:56 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> This HTML fails validation, as one isn't supposed to be stuffing
>> tables inside <p> nodes. The attached patch fixes all the instances of
>> this I could find, by closing out <para> nodes before beginning lists
>> and tables.
>
> Um, this is like moving around the C code because the compiler generates
> invalid assembly code. Fix the compiler.
I agree with this sentiment.
> That said, we have the following in stylesheet.dsl:
>
> ;; Block elements are allowed in PARA in DocBook, but not in P in
> ;; HTML. With %fix-para-wrappers% turned on, the stylesheets attempt
> ;; to avoid putting block elements in HTML P tags by outputting
> ;; additional end/begin P pairs around them.
> (define %fix-para-wrappers% #t)
Hrm, where is the code behind fix-para-wrappers? I don't see it inside
openjade, or anywhere inside Postgres?
> So evidently someone thought of this before and put something in to
> prevent some/many/most cases.
>
> In general, I think the more efficient way to address this overall
> problem is to run the resulting HTML through tidy and be done with it.
Hey, this actually works surprisingly well on a few files I tested.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-11-04 14:26:32 | Re: Large SGML Cleanup |
Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2010-11-03 22:59:58 | Re: Large SGML Cleanup |