Closed toptensoftware closed 1 month ago
Your above suggestion / explanation has worked for me in the past
Some sort of “line begins with and contains a complete open-tag” seems good to me
The word "complete" was meant to do the work. But I'm happy to change it as suggested.
Pushing back a little: the current text does say: "begins with a complete open tag...all on a single line". Isn't that sufficiently explicit?
Note: "all on a single line" was added in 800e199b0df62c64b8eaee9a5996a5da6d2bf8bf and is not in the most recent release! I guess someone else had exactly the same problem you did. Isn't the fix sufficient?
The word "complete" was meant to do the work
Yes, but "starts with a complete" makes it confusing - hence my suggestion of "starts with and contains".
Note: "all on a single line" was added
I was going off what's written here so didn't see the 'all on a single line' change.
That covers it, but I still think confusing because it reads like: "a line that starts with an opening tag which can contain new lines but all on one line".
Personally, I think it warrants an explicit comment to make this clear.
For the start condition of a type 7 HTML block the spec says:
At various points the spec for an open-tag says they can contain:
I was reading this as if a type 7 HTML block can start with an open tag that contains line breaks - but in fact they can't.
Perhaps the start condition should be worded as "line begins with and contains a complete open-tag", or more explicitly state that the "up to one line ending" doesn't apply for type 7 blocks.