From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from localhost (fantadrom.bsd.lv [local])
	by fantadrom.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 35a3f31c
	for <source@mandoc.bsd.lv>;
	Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:18:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:18:32 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailinglist: mandoc-source
Reply-To: source@mandoc.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: schwarze@mandoc.bsd.lv
To: source@mandoc.bsd.lv
Subject: mandoc: Render .br as <br/>, not as an empty <div>.
X-Mailer: activitymail 1.26, http://search.cpan.org/dist/activitymail/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Message-Id: <381dade8e390f2a9@fantadrom.bsd.lv>

Log Message:
-----------
Render .br as <br/>, not as an empty <div>.
The element <br/> was already employed for many other purposes,
so there is nothing wrong with using it.
Also, it is safer because <br/> is permitted in phrasing content,
whereas <div> is only allowed in flow content.

This is the first part of the HTML syntax audit which i wanted 
to do for a long time.  Reminded by a loosely related bug report 
from Mark Harris <mark dot hsj at gmail dot com>.

Examples of where this caused HTML nesting syntax errors:
* in man(7) code between .nf and .fi
* in mdoc(7) code between .Bd -unfilled and .Ed
* in mdoc(7) code between .Ql Xo and .Xc
* in mdoc(7) code between .Rs and .Re

Modified Files:
--------------
    mandoc:
        roff_html.c

Revision Data
-------------
Index: roff_html.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/mandoc/mandoc/roff_html.c,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -Lroff_html.c -Lroff_html.c -u -p -r1.12 -r1.13
--- roff_html.c
+++ roff_html.c
@@ -58,11 +58,7 @@ roff_html_pre(struct html *h, const stru
 static void
 roff_html_pre_br(ROFF_HTML_ARGS)
 {
-	struct tag	*t;
-
-	t = print_otag(h, TAG_DIV, "");
-	print_text(h, "\\~");  /* So the div isn't empty. */
-	print_tagq(h, t);
+	print_otag(h, TAG_BR, "");
 }
 
 static void
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to source+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv