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 17:02:22 -0400
To: public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <i7fxu4rmw1.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>

James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk> writes:

>> So if html is really a problem make /> generate an empty element for all
>> elements unless specified otherwise, and then specify otherwise for all
>> (non-empty)  html elements.
>
> I think it is plausible that we will be able to have the parser treat
> "/>" as indicating a void (HTML 5 term for empty, to distinguish it
> from an element with no content) element if that element is to be
> placed into a non-html namespace in the DOM. That's different from
> blacklisting the set of HTML elements, as there are cases where an
> unknown element will be placed in the HTML namespace.

At the time XML, version 1.0, was being discussed there was a fight
about whether <foo/> should be restricted to the case that "foo" was
defined-empty ("void", as you say).

The defined-empty crowd lost, and, since then in XML, more than 10
years now, <foo/> can mean either that "foo" is defined-empty or that
it is a de facto empty container.  It would be mischief to depart from
this now.

                                    -- Bill
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 21:02:59 UTC

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