Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tidy output clutter #857

Yves4 opened this issue Jan 31, 2020 · 2 comments

Tidy output clutter #857

Yves4 opened this issue Jan 31, 2020 · 2 comments


Copy link

Yves4 commented Jan 31, 2020

It would be nice to maintain the standard UNIX approach, which is no unnecessary output. So basically make the -q flag default and put the text in the help text or something. This disturbs the casual user and is less polite.

I'm referring to this text:

"About HTML Tidy:
Bug reports and comments:
Official mailing list:
Latest HTML specification:
Validate your HTML documents:
Lobby your company to join the W3C:

Would you like to see Tidy in proper, British English? Please consider
helping us to localise HTML Tidy. For details please see"

Copy link

geoffmcl commented Feb 9, 2020

@Yves4 thanks for your comment...

Well, I did not know there is a standard UNIX approach... that includes no unnecessary output... refs for that... ;=))

But even if there is, with a less-is-better philosophy, the creators of tidy, who were unix based, seemed to include a html educational approach, to the errout output...

And I guess that it is aimed primarily at the casual user... since it repeats things a dev would know... and certainly did not intend it to be less polite... lol...

Since from their first tidy --help, they can read how to quieten, -q, or redirect, -f tidyout.txt, etc, etc...

So is it the time, to invert the verbal default, by the founders... maybe... but...

Maybe I have gotten used to adding -q, just about every time... yes, it probably really annoys the developer... ;=))

But can maybe be persuaded... look forward to further feedback... thanks...

Copy link

I'm going to close this as a duplicate of #607, which is even more encompassing than this request.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet

No branches or pull requests

3 participants