[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: org-mode Publishing fails xhtml validation and LibreJS test.
From: |
Colin Baxter |
Subject: |
Re: org-mode Publishing fails xhtml validation and LibreJS test. |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Dec 2020 07:20:25 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
Dear Time,
>>>>> Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:
> Colin Baxter <m43cap@yandex.com> writes:
>> Hello,
>>
>> When publishing, org-mode inserts the following javascript in the
>> xhtml file:
>>
>> #+begin_src js <script type="text/javascript"> // @license
>>
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e95b018ef3580986a04669f1b5879592219e2a7a&dn=public-domain.txt
>> Public Domain <!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/ function
>> CodeHighlightOn(elem, id) { var target =
>> document.getElementById(id); if(null != target) {
>> elem.classList.add("code-highlighted");
>> target.classList.add("code-highlighted"); } } function
>> CodeHighlightOff(elem, id) { var target =
>> document.getElementById(id); if(null != target) {
>> elem.classList.remove("code-highlighted");
>> target.classList.remove("code-highlighted"); } } /*]]>*///--> //
>> @license-end </script> #+end_src
>>
>> There are issues with this script.
>>
>> 1. The script gives errors in XHTML 1.0 Strict validation. For
>> example, the line beginning //@license ... gives errors of the
>> type: a. cannot generate system identifier for general entity
>> "dn" b. general entity "dn" not defined and no default entity
>> c. reference not terminated by REFC delimiter etc.
>>
>> 2. The script fails the LibreJS (gnu.org/software/librejs)
>> tests. This can be tested by opining the page in icecat.
>>
>> In order to pass XHTML and LibreJS validation tests, I have to
>> delete the script from my web pages by hand.
>>
> Given the move to HTML5 and deprecation of XHTML, how valid are
> XHTML compliance requirements these days? Could it be time to
> 'reverse' the org defaults and export using HTML5 by default
> rather than XHTML?
I believe it remains important to have XHTML compliance, a view which
would seem consistent with W3C's retention of its validation service.
> Would it be sufficient to just have the license information
> embedded as a simple comment?
I think this might be a good idea. And if it gets rid of the non-free
javascript (as defined by LibreJS and therefore by gnu) then so much the
better.
Best wishes,
Colin Baxter.
Colin Baxter
URL: http://www.Colin-Baxter.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG fingerprint: 68A8 799C 0230 16E7 BF68 2A27 BBFA 2492 91F5 41C8
---------------------------------------------------------------------