From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 23 17:07:52 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CEE106564A for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:07:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gabor@FreeBSD.org) Received: from server.mypc.hu (server.mypc.hu [87.229.73.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B268FC17 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:07:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server.mypc.hu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.mypc.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5807814E6B3D; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:07:50 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at server.mypc.hu Received: from server.mypc.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by server.mypc.hu (server.mypc.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id cVSMmSVnmO1n; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:07:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.117] (catv-80-98-232-12.catv.broadband.hu [80.98.232.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.mypc.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45E5C14E6AE6; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:07:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F1D93E0.2050709@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:07:44 +0100 From: Gabor Kovesdan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0a2) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/10.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warren Block References: <4F1B4767.5070105@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Tidy and HTML tab spacing X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:07:52 -0000 On 2012.01.22. 1:30, Warren Block wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > >> On 2012.01.18. 23:49, Warren Block wrote: >>> 5. Don't tidy HTML files at all (suggested as an option by Benedict >>> Reuschling). The unprocessed HTML is ugly, but few people are going >>> to look at it directly. Files that haven't been through tidy are a >>> little larger, about 4% in the case of the Porter's Handbook. >> I also think tidy should be removed. As hrs wrote, new standards >> should be evaluated and probably they are much better. (I think they >> are.) If there are some nits, then we should process it with a custom >> script or something, instead of this crapware. > > Tidy does a lot; it would be a lot of work to recreate. Tidy is also the reason that our webpages are not valid HTML. Gabor