ddoc $(BR)

[Carlos Santander]

Unknown W. Brackets escribió:
> 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]
> 
> 

But the DDOC macro says the generated document is HTML 4.01 Strict, not XHTML, 
so I'm validating it as such. However, the validator complains. I'm not arguing 
whether the output should be XHTML or not, just that if it says it's HTML 4.01 
Strict, it should conform to it.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal