Re: lynx-dev Re: The old lynx bug (was: Re: Bugs older than two years)

[Webmaster Jim]

On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 01:05:08PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> we have received the follwoing report through the bug tracking system
> of Debian at http://www.debian.org/Bugs/.
> The bug is against version 2.4-FM-960316-1 but still present.
> The entire report can be viewed at 
> http://www.infodrom.north.de/Debian/Bugs/db/38/3846.html
> There is a bug in the parsing produced by lynx, as shown below.  The
> line marked >>>>> should not appear.
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 12:14:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >    Package: lynx
> > >    Maintainer: Christian Hudon <address@hidden>
> > >    3846 lynx misdisplays multiple <dt> in <dl>
> > >    [HELP] Is this really a bug?
> > RFC 1866 (HTML 2.0) says:
> >    The content of a <DL> element is a sequence of <DT> elements and/or
> >    <DD> elements, usually in pairs. Multiple <DT> may be paired with a
> >    single <DD> element. Documents should not contain multiple
> >    consecutive <DD> elements.
> >    [...]
> >    Unless the COMPACT attribute is present, an HTML user agent may leave
> >    white space between successive DT, DD pairs. The COMPACT attribute
> >    may also reduce the width of the left-hand (DT) column.
> > Thus, it looks like a bug, since (by natural implication) space may be
> > left only between successive DT DD pairs, and multiple DT's are allowed
> > for a DD.  The newer HTML specifications do not address this.
> > This should be forwarded upstream.
> Which I've done now.
[ above compacted ]

It depends on how one views DT/DD "pairs". One view is that a DT without
a following DD is an orphaned term, waiting for a definition. Another
view is that they are really "paired" (although more than 2 seem
allowed), and thus should be rendered together.

Myself, I tend to closey couple terms and definitions...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Marvin the Paranoid Android.