The validation script currently checks for HTML markup by matching the syntax of HTML tag pairs using a regular expression. Implemented in pcchecks.py
This rule inadvertently picks up XML snippets and other markup that matches the same structure, causing false-positive validation failures for .adoc files that contain snippets of XML markup (such as examples of pom.xml files configurations)
Also, our Supplementary Style Guide recommends that we surround references to replaceable values in angle brackets (< >).
This could also fairly easily be interpreted as HTML, leading to validation failure for some modules.
I understand that form an implementation standpoint, this might be a very tricky problem to solve, because it would require us to essentially implement an HTML validator within the validator script, which would be extremely work- and resource intensive.
As a temporary solution we might
implement an option that ignores the HTML rule in pcchecks.py when you run the validator script (unsafe).
implement an option that lowers the error level for HTML markup to WARN instead of FAIL (still unsafe but less so).
Please let me know your thoughts. I might be missing some key technical knowledge and not seeing a potentially more suitable solution.
A workaround would be to exclude html markup that’s in italic _<some>html</some>_ or in backticks <some>html</some>. <value name> or <value _name> won’t be picked up by the regex as it doesn’t end with </>
The validation script currently checks for HTML markup by matching the syntax of HTML tag pairs using a regular expression. Implemented in
pcchecks.py
This rule inadvertently picks up XML snippets and other markup that matches the same structure, causing false-positive validation failures for
.adoc
files that contain snippets of XML markup (such as examples ofpom.xml
files configurations)Also, our Supplementary Style Guide recommends that we surround references to replaceable values in angle brackets (
< >
). This could also fairly easily be interpreted as HTML, leading to validation failure for some modules.I understand that form an implementation standpoint, this might be a very tricky problem to solve, because it would require us to essentially implement an HTML validator within the validator script, which would be extremely work- and resource intensive.
As a temporary solution we might
pcchecks.py
when you run the validator script (unsafe).WARN
instead ofFAIL
(still unsafe but less so).Please let me know your thoughts. I might be missing some key technical knowledge and not seeing a potentially more suitable solution.