Timeline for Evolution of "Hello World!"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ | |
| May 28, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | gcampbell | If a doctype is required to prevent the imminent destruction of the universe, perhaps we should amend our hello world? | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 21:41 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | The very fact that they're called errors should be all you need to know that they're invalid. The note you link to about the missing doctype says that the doctype is required and explains why: how on Earth can you claim that it justifies not including the doctype? | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 19:50 | comment | added | Optimizer | @PeterTaylor quoting a line from spec and changing its meaning. Wow. "Documents must consist of the following parts, in the given order" Still does not say anything about incorrect additional things in between and how to handle them. The three links I have provided clearly call out how to handle many error situations. | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 19:49 | comment | added | Optimizer | @PeterTaylor Again, whatever are you linking is only for parsing the correct things out of the HTML. It still does not say anything about what to do in case of errors, for instance - "5. If there are extra characters inside of the opening tag body which do not belong to either of the attribute name, attribute value or tag name, treat the tag as invalid HTML and do not render it to the user". Since nothing like that is specified, the only reference of error handling are the 3 links I have provided earlier. Finally, about missing doctype 1st note. | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 19:30 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | Actually it does say that anything not following the spec should be treated as invalid HTML when it says "Documents must consist of the following parts, in the given order" and then defines the grammar for those parts. So if you're claiming that this is HTML5 then the first error is the lack of doctype. And the strings not being attribute names does make it an invalid echo tag: see the continued use of the word must. Browsers will render any string of chars as best they can: that doesn't mean that any string of chars is HTML. | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 19:07 | comment | added | Optimizer | Also, I am done discussing this with you. If this is invalid HTML, then browsers should not have rendered it. You can raise bugs in bugzilla.mozilla.org , bugs.webkit.org and code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list . | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 19:03 | comment | added | Optimizer | [cont] The W3C and whatwg spec say very little about syntax errors and parse errors but whatever they say simply suggest to ignore errors. Some links can be found here: 1 2 3 | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 19:02 | comment | added | Optimizer | @PeterTaylor I think you are not reading properly. That spec only tells about what is considered as an attribute name and value . It nowhere says treat anything not following this spec as invalid HTML. Sure that the two attributes should not have been attributes but that does not make it an invalid echo tag. In fact. The whole syntax spec for any attribute/custom element/standard HTML elements only says what is regarded as a valid (attribute|custom element|standard HTML element). [cont] | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 18:42 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | I'd like to see a reference for "which should have been no-ops as per HTML5 spec", because by a plain reading what you've posted isn't HTML. | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 16:49 | comment | added | Optimizer | @PeterTaylor Thank you Peter for the down vote. I definitely deserved it for properly following the spec of the question and using certain characters which should have been no-ops as per HTML5 spec but because of browser's wrong implementation, end up being empty attributes. | |
| Jan 17, 2015 at 15:44 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | This isn't valid HTML for any version of HTML. Your browser may try to handle it anyway, because unfortunately that's what browsers do, but neither the SGML-based versions nor the latest version allow arbitrary characters in attribute names. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 19:16 | comment | added | Amory | Next up, HTML tries to find the closing echo tag, but instead, finds a closing vsh tag. It then ignores the closing vsh tag (i.e. </vsh) and auto closes the echo tag. This is just beautiful writing. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 15:00 | comment | added | Martin Ender | @Optimizer Required reading for people recommending w3schools. ;) | |
| Oct 31, 2014 at 17:13 | comment | added | David Conrad | I think this is what happens when you read standards documents at 3 am while on peyote. | |
| Oct 31, 2014 at 9:51 | history | edited | Optimizer | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 719 characters in body |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 13:33 | comment | added | RubberDuck | Pretty dang clever. Never would have thought of it. | |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 7:44 | comment | added | MAKZ | yeah got it. very clever . +1 | |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 7:38 | comment | added | Optimizer | You can have any tag in HTML, so echo is a normal tag. o[.]c;cat<<;#&&alert" is a property on that tag and the last " is another property on that tag. You can see this using Inspector developer tool too. | |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 7:31 | comment | added | MAKZ | is it a dummy tag ? | |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 7:31 | comment | added | MAKZ | but what does <echo o[.]c;cat<<;#&&alert" "> mean ? | |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 7:30 | comment | added | Optimizer | @MAKZ HTML is pretty free and loose. You can have unmatched opening closing tags and what not. XHTML is pretty strict. w3schools is a good starting point. | |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 7:28 | comment | added | MAKZ | i have never seen such type of html. any link to learn this html? | |
| Oct 28, 2014 at 5:01 | history | answered | Optimizer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |