[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by KevinH

As it turns out according to the xhtml 1.1 dtd / schema nested anchors are not allowed in xhtml 1.1 (if you choose strict vs tr it should be caught by a validator).

That said, most browsers did display nested anchors as expected, so people still use them but techically should not.

Thanks for the info.

Originally Posted by roger64

.../...<sup></sup>.../...

Really? When I meet this, I usually suppress it.

I agree, in most cases an empty tag like that is absolutely useless. I typically strip those things out as one of the initial cleaning steps.

In this case, it is important to see exactly how Sigil decided to alter the code.

In the Before, the footnote number is superscript. After Sigil 0.9.6 does its magic, the number is no longer superscript.

Before: <p><a id="bookmark1">^{<a href="#footnote1">1</a>}</a></p>

After: <p><a id="bookmark1"></a><a href="#footnote1">1</a></p>

I never really noticed this too much since Sigil never complained before + I have a set of Regex I have been using for years and years to clean/condense a bunch of the Finereader cruft. This Regex is one of them:

Search: <p><a id="[^"]+">^{<a href="[^"]+">([0-9]+)</a>}</a></p>\s+<p>
Replace: <p>^\1

Originally Posted by theducks

I thought it was <sub> tags that brought on hunger


For those lurkers
A 'Sub" (or hoagie) is a Sandwich made on roll

Always great when you need to add an explanatory note to your jokes.