W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: [cowan@mercury.ccil.org: Questions about HTML void elements]

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:46:52 +0100
To: public-html-xml@w3.org, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <op.vpmbodfu64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:01:01 +0100, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>  
> These are (some of) my beliefs about HTML void elements.  Can someone
> indicate whether any of them are false?

This is quite easy to verify in the specification. Does something need to  
be simplified there? What is stopping you checking it there?

> 1) There are 14 void elements, namely area, base, br, col, command,
>    embed, hr, img, input, keygen, link, meta, param, and source.

There's also track and wbr. <image> becomes <img> and <isindex> is a  
special macro.

> 4) The form "<br/>" is *invalid* HTML.

It is valid.

> 6) The form "<hr/>" is *invalid* HTML.

It is valid.

> 12) All other void elements behave like hr.

No, only <hr> implies a </p> tag when there is a p element in scope.

> 13) The list of void elements will never grow.

We might add elements in the future.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 17:47:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:27 UTC