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

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:24:25 +0300
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Public MathML mailing list" <www-math@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AD6F32B6-5C41-4AB7-B2F5-4FB103EBBDAD@iki.fi>
To: Neil Soiffer <Neils@dessci.com>

On Apr 3, 2008, at 20:59, Neil Soiffer wrote:
> I'm getting a little confused.  It seems like the following is true:
> 	 <script/> is treated like <script> in all browsers -- it will  
> match against </script>


> 	 In all browsers, an unclosed script is not executed

At least for contemporary values of all.

> 	 Firefox v1 and v2 differ in how they treat unterminated scripts,  
> but that difference is irrelevant for this case.

It changed between 2 and 3, but yes.

> It seems like the consensus is that for MathML and SVG namespaces  
> (and maybe any non-HTML namespace), <foo/> should be considered  
> empty.  Nothing breaks in HTML because of this, and it enables  
> MathML, SVG, and other XML-based syntaxes.  Assuming that is true,  
> that seems like a very positive development from this thread.

Yes, /> needs to be honored for MathML and SVG elements but must not  
be honored for HTML elements. /> is still allowed in validation for  
void HTML elements. (So the validator complains about <div/> but not  
about <br/>.)

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 07:25:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:32 UTC