Re: Markdown version of reference manual

["Drake Wilson" <drake@...>]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:38 -0300, "Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo" <lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> 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.

In particular, the earlier poster seems to have been basing eir assumptions
on XHTML syntax, which is considerably stricter.  The earlier SGML-based
syntaxes (and their degraded tag soup forms, but that's irrelevant here)
are much looser and allow implied tags in many places and case-insensitive
tag names and such.

   ---> Drake Wilson