ddoc $(BR)

[Unknown W. Brackets]

I was able to make DDoc output valid XHTML, at least a couple versions ago.

However, it's really not that possible (at least, not near-trivial) to 
make it output semantic information.  As current, most of the DDoc used 
seems to be heavily presentational, which really isn't correct for XHTML 
anyway.

What I'm trying to say is, if you want XHTML you should use XHTML.  You 
can make DDoc output code the validator will like, but it will still be 
wrong.  I suggest sticking with HTML 4 instead for DDoc output until 
which time as it is made more semantic.

But, your opinion may vary.  There is truth in the assertion that valid, 
but not semantically valid, XHTML is closer than HTML 4.  I personally 
can't write HTML anymore, just seems like C vs. D to me.... but then I 
also try to write reasonably semantic XHTML too.

-[Unknown]


> Not exactly a bug, but it is in a sense.
> DDOC generates a lot of <br>, which are ok, but the pages are rejected 
> as not valid (according to the W3C validator). I'm not sure if they 
> should be in <p> tags or they're just no longer accepted, but I think 
> something should be done. Most of the cases can be changed by replacing 
> the macros, but there're two cases in doc.c in which $(BR) is hardcoded: 
> lines 910 and 349. I think they should be changed by another macro.
>