Marked's HTML output is not valid XML, MMD's is.
Marked's output head contains some unclosed meta tags (did not check if others too). MMD uses the XHTML variant of closing all self-closing tags when generating fully formed HTML output.
While not closing tags is perfectly valid HTML, it clashes with XML workflows. On the other hand, outputting XHTML does not have an impact on HTML-only workflows, so the latter would be preferred, just like MMD does.
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
Support Staff 1 Posted by Brett on 07 Jun, 2012 07:49 PM
Specifically which headers are you talking about?
Support Staff 2 Posted by Brett on 07 Jun, 2012 07:52 PM
You mean this block?
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1">
<title>Compiled</title>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
This is only output when exporting with a theme, and the doctype is explicitly declared as HTML, not XHTML. In what cases would you need to process a pure html document as XML?
3 Posted by chocolate.camer... on 07 Jun, 2012 08:03 PM
Yes, that block.
XSLT for example.
Closing tags is as much HTML as not closing them, but avoids potential integration problems where valid XML may be required. Furthermore, in Marked's output, the body does have all tags closed (such as br/). What is the value in having that inconsistency of closing in some places not in others?
I think it is reasonable to expect that Marked's output will sometimes be reused in other environments, and closing those tags does not present any drawback that I can think of. Can you?
Support Staff 4 Posted by Brett on 07 Jun, 2012 08:28 PM
Nah, not a big deal. Added them in for the next release.