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. Michal