On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:29:17AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 03.04.2012 17:38, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:33:43AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/03/2012 09:25 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
Void elements should be written with slash *after* the tag name, not before, so they are not confused with ending tags. ---
Pushing under trivial rule. Produced by: :%s/<\/br>/<br\/>/g command, so if breaks something, blame vim :)
docs/news.html.in | 642 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 files changed, 321 insertions(+), 321 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/news.html.in b/docs/news.html.in index 68b2d3a..eb9c3ec 100644 --- a/docs/news.html.in +++ b/docs/news.html.in @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -<?xml version="1.0"?> +<?xml version="1.0"?
And there's the first broken change. :(
Further more, I wonder why our xmllint check did not complain about either this problem, or the original problem
Daniel
Because the flow is like this: %.html.tmp: %.html.in %.html: %.html.tmp
And we are using xmllint for validation only when creating %.html not %html.tmp; Moreover, xsltproc we are using for generating %.html.tmp omitted badly formated tags. In other words:
Lorem ipsum </br>\n
in %.html.in got translated into:
Lorem ipsum \n
in %html.tmp which is compliant to XML.
Ah, so we need to make sure that xsltproc rejects malformed XML in news.html.in Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|