Re: sgml-mode.el: html-close-tag

[Stefan Monnier]

>>>>> "Felix" == Felix Natter <fnatter@gmx.net> writes:
> - when I eval this code, it loads 'thingatpt (for thing-at-point
>   'word) and 'mule-util (?). do we have to add (require ...)
>   statements as is done for 'skeleton and 'outline ?

The `require' for skeleton and outline are only used to eliminate
some warnings during compilation.

> - do we need to support comments that end in i.e. "-- >" ?
>   (allowed in HTML 4, section 3.2.4 of the specification)
>   currently html-close-tag exits with an error.

It probably should, but Emacs is riddled with known bugs.

> - there are three variables, and they are likely used "file-locally"
>   (in <!-- Local Variables: ...).  Should we still make them available
>   via defcustom ? if so, which group should they be put in ? (sgml or
>   html, which doesn't yet exist)

Which are these ?  I think that if a variable/functionality can make sense
in SGML, it should be added to the SGML mode rather than the HTML mode.
As a matter of fact, it seems that your html-close-tag could/should be
turned into sgml-close-tag.

You'd better take a look at the CVS version of sgml-mode.el where
there are some related things:

- An sgml-xml variable (which should/will be turned into xml-minor-mode).
- An sgml-empty-tags variable listing the tags that should be written
  as <foo/> (i.e. equivalent to html-close-tag-empty-html-tag-p).

> - I have written a testsuite for html-close-tag (included in
>   closetag.el) Should we put it in sgml-mode.el, too ? It's about
>   70 lines.

I don't think there's much point in throwing it away.


        Stefan