Re: html.syntax

[Pavel Roskin <proski gnu org>]

Hello, David!

>  I've been messing with the syntax file for HTML. It's hard work because
> there are many places where you need contexts within other contexts and
> if you try to use a keyword as a pseudo-context you are limited by
> newline characters.

I know.

> Let's summarize so you can choose and merge:
> 
> a) This is a MUST. References can't have the "whole" attribute because
> they are usually in the middle of words and they are ignored:
> 
>     keyword &*; white/12
>     
>     prefixásuffix

You are right.  I'll fix it.

> b) I've heavily coloured the DOCTYPE tag and the HTML version is
> highlighted (very nice!!!). It's a good thing to enforce standards even
> if they are $propietary$. It may need some tweaking because I only tried
> the W3C official DTD's.
> 
> c) Use cyan (darker) for closing tags . Not essential.
> 
> d) Use yellow (lighter) for top level tags (html, body, stc.)

I'm sorry, but it looks quite ugly to me.

> e) Remark styles as used in CSS. Class, id and pseudo-classes selections
> are colored. I had problems with color styles (color:#990000) because of
> the #, same as in the id selector. May need some tweaking.

"style" is not case sensitive.

> b) Remark embedded scripts.
> 
> I agree to remove tag names and properties, and these are just to
> enforce the block structure of the file.

Red scripts are hard to read.  "script" is not case sensitive.

> There is a css.syntax for Cooledit, but it has similar structure to the
> old syntax.html. Take a look.

I'll add css.syntax to the distribution.

> Now for the bad things.
> 
> a) We have problems with quoted "" strings within the context when they
> spread in several lines. I see no way to higlight &xxx; references in
> them. Same for style definitions {} within the

Not a big deal.

> b) You may dislike the colors...

Yes :-(

> c) No clue about color numbers, as in yellow/24. I wrote them in a
> pseudo-random way.

Should be fixed in Cooledit.  For now, take numbers from other rules.  
They are for X11 (i.e. hi-color GUI).

> About tidy, it's the only command line checker I know. It's sponsored by
> W3C and it seems to be included in recent Linux distributions. Try the
> latest version at SourceForge with the options I sent.

Will do.

Please let's stop spending time on this stuff.  There are more serious 
issues that block the release.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin