Warren Block <wbl...@wonkity.com> wrote in <alpi...@wonkity.com>:

wb> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: wb> wb> > On 2012.01.18. 23:49, Warren Block wrote: wb> >> 5. Don't tidy HTML files at all (suggested as an option by Benedict wb> >> Reuschling). The unprocessed HTML is ugly, but few people are going wb> >> to look at it directly. Files that haven't been through tidy are a wb> >> little larger, about 4% in the case of the Porter's Handbook. wb> > I also think tidy should be removed. As hrs wrote, new standards wb> > should be evaluated and probably they are much better. (I think they wb> > are.) If there are some nits, then we should process it with a custom wb> > script or something, instead of this crapware. wb> wb> Tidy does a lot; it would be a lot of work to recreate. wb> wb> There's a default choice I didn't mention earlier: wb> wb> 0. Leave it alone. wb> wb> (Maybe this will all change with the DocBook XML changeover. I don't wb> know when that is supposed to happen, but if it's not too long, this wb> could be the right way to go.) wb> wb> Finally, there's one last choice: wb> wb> 6. A pretty good case could be made for using &#09; instead of tabs in wb> the source <programlisting> blocks. The more I think about it, the wb> more technically-correct that seems. In that case, tidy should be wb> fine as it is now.

Hmm, I suggest to disable tab expansion or do &#09; replacement in Tidy based on your patch for the meantime. One thing I concerned about is how &#09; outside elements like <pre> works. If it is harmless in major www browsers (this should be treated as a whitespace) and it can mitigate the issue, I think there is no problem with it.

I agree with migrating our documents to newer XML standards will solve this in more consistent manner as Gabor said. I said it (and SVN repo migration) would happen within last October but I could not handle that nicely. Sorry for that, but it is now in progress. I believe Tidy can be removed after that.

-- Hiroki