W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: "/>" (was Re: several messages about New Vocabularies in text/html

From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:46:22 -0400
To: public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <i7k5jgrnmp.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov> writes:

> A minor question:
> Is handling <whatevertag/> in HTML5 really a problem?
> If the tag ends with />, just note that the element is empty
> (ie. has no content, whether or not it is officially an empty element),
> and move on.

No, but apparently some browsers are so challenged.

> _Surely_, no one out there is writing HTML using <whatevertag/>
> when they _dont_ mean to close the element?!?!?!
> (rolling my eyes :> )

An earlier time to roll one's eyes was when HTML 4.01 appeared without
the small mod to the SGML declaration that would have fixed this.
All of "<br>", "<br/>", and "<br></br>" could have been officially
equivalent in HTML 4.01.

In fact, I wonder if a person having some familiarity with Goldfarb's
SGML Handbook (and the www adaptations) could explain succinctly why
html5 source is not being specified relative to an underlying,
canonically related, sgml document type.  As with HTML 4.01, this
would not preclude setting requirements beyond those associated with
the underlying sgml document type.
 
                                    -- Bill
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 20:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:54 UTC