Hi!
This is my first time using this! I noticed though that the editor is pretty “aggressive” with linting HTML 5-- marking things that are valid HTML5 files as invalid.
A quick example is:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<title>hi!</title>
<body>
<script src="/path/to/something.js"></script>
It complains about about the </body> being missing, but HTML 5 doesn’t require <body> be closed.
I mean, completely minor thing! Keep up the awesome work!
Hi toddself,
thanks for posting, and we are glad you like it 
you can customize the linter at the top of your html file, you can add the following:
<!--htmlhint tag-pair:false -->
to get the linter less aggressive against unmatched tags The full list of options is here.
I hope this helps!
Thank you! That does help. Turning off tag matching though is bad since it will then ignore actually broken HTML!
The gist is that <body>, under most cases does not require a closing tag, but <div> always does. Turning off tag matching doesn’t flag unclosed <div>.
I just filed a bug on HTMLHint though since this stems from that :).
I’ll continue on this thread but the html linter is also aggressive of wanting double quotes around attribute values.
The value of attribute [ binding-info ] must be in double quotes.
I can understand enforcing lack of quotes or mismatched single and double quotes but saying usage of single quotes is an error seems more like enforcement of a style choice than preventing errors.
I have some small chunks of json in data-* attributes that are a lot easier to read when using single-quoted html attribute values. It looks like the corresponding linter rule is attr-value-double-quotes.
+1 for a minor thing and thanks for your awesome work!
Right now we inherit our tag rules from codemirror, and a lot of them are indeed archaic. It’s on our backlog to customize those rules, and/or find a way to open them up to user config (ie through a lint config file or something)