diff options
| author |   Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@openbsd.org> | 2018-12-03 16:18:02 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@openbsd.org> | 2018-12-03 16:18:02 +0000 |
| commit | 17e67c5cb10de07302a0f0ad1a0da7af23788f98 (patch) | |
| tree | dee86c854747e8118d7a902141e4e3b95f21b0f1 | |
| parent | a73ce50449b9ea611775c6c50b7fd42d08d80ae9 (diff) | |
| download | mandoc-17e67c5cb10de07302a0f0ad1a0da7af23788f98.tar.gz mandoc-17e67c5cb10de07302a0f0ad1a0da7af23788f98.tar.zst mandoc-17e67c5cb10de07302a0f0ad1a0da7af23788f98.zip | |
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
| -rw-r--r-- | roff_html.c | 8 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/roff_html.c b/roff_html.c index 6a06c0d8..b26d9be9 100644 --- a/roff_html.c +++ b/roff_html.c @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/* $Id: roff_html.c,v 1.12 2018/06/25 14:53:58 schwarze Exp $ */ +/* $Id: roff_html.c,v 1.13 2018/12/03 16:18:02 schwarze Exp $ */ /* * Copyright (c) 2010 Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv> * Copyright (c) 2014, 2017, 2018 Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@openbsd.org> @@ -58,11 +58,7 @@ roff_html_pre(struct html *h, const struct roff_node *n) 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 |