Re: Markdown version of reference manual

[Dirk Laurie <dpl@...>]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 08:38:13PM +0200, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
> > Actually, the HTML version shows several signs of hand-coded HTML,
> > in particular the universal omission of </p>, occasional omission 
> > of <p> where strictly it is required, variations in the case of 
> > HTML tags, etc.  The first two of these are transgressions of the
> > HTML standard, but forgiven by Firefox and presumably also by other 
> > browsers commonly used, since no-one has complained.
> 
> The W3C Markup Validation Service at http://validator.w3.org/
> says that http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html
> is valid HTML 4.01 Transitional as claimed in DOCTYPE section.

The Wikipedia article on HTML says:

> The Strict version is intended for new documents and is considered best
> practice, while the Transitional and Frameset versions were developed to make
> it easier to transition documents that conformed to older HTML specification
> or didn't conform to any specification to a version of HTML 4.

Maybe I should have capitalized Strictly?

Dirk