My understanding is that there is a difference between HTML5 and XHTML5,
and that HTML5 does not have to be well-formed XML. You can use XHTML5 at
the expense of omitting <noscript>, which has the effect of making its
content a no-op when scripts are enabled, thus it isn't well-formed.
It seems to me that using XHTML5 would only be for pedantic reasons or if
you have some reason to parse it with an XML parser rather than an HTML5
parser. Browsers parse with intent to accept all sorts of poorly-formed
stylings, it's legal to not close <p> , <li> , <img> , or <br> under HTML5.
Thanks
Bruce
On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 9:32 AM Peter via Dng <dng@???> wrote:
> From: Steve Litt <slitt@???>
> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 04:28:55 -0500
> > See also https://troubleshooters.com/web/validating.htm#xmlchecker
>
> Thanks twice.
>
> I've used the W3C validator for years, oblivious to the possibility of
> local installation. So now it's installed. Thanks1!
>
> The file at https://easthope.ca/Peter.html validates with no error.
> Your section "End Tag Rules of the Road" is perfectly sensible
> although the validator notes trailing slashes, <br/> and etc.
>
> xmlchecker.py is also installed. Brilliant! Thanks2!
> It gives this output.
>
> Testing for well formedness Peter.html ...
>
> ERROR: mismatched tag: line 20, column 2 !!!!!!
>
> =======================================
> Disclaimer: This program replaced file Peter.html's
> <!DOCTYPE > line with a special html5
> DOCTYPE line while evaluating. The original
> file has not been changed. It's possible
> this program might be inaccurate if the
> original file had a non-html5 DOCTYPE line.
> =======================================
>
> The error at 20.2. baffles me.
>
> To my knowledge <!DOCTYPE html> is correct for HTML5. The disclaimer
> is for unidentified syntaxes?
>
> A linguistic question for possible interest. In my understanding,
> validity of HTML is syntactic correctness of HTML. And
> well-formedness of XML is syntactic correctness of XML. Validity and
> well-formedness are just two synonyms for syntactic correctness.
> Correct? More subtle?
>
> Thanks again, ... P.
>
> --
> VoIP: +1 604 670 0140
> work: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:PeterEasthope
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> Manage your subscription:
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
> Archive: https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/list/dng.en.html
>
--
Bruce Perens K6BP
::
Re: [DNG] HTML/SVG/PostScript
