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

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:22:14 +0200
Message-ID: <48BA7EE6.5000708@gmx.de>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Smylers wrote:
>>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> there are at least two ways to avoid the problem: ...  2) Keep
>>>> introducing new void elements, but always allow non-void notation,
>>>> such as <eventsource source="foo"></eventsource>
>>> <eventsource src="foo"/> is allowed.  Isn't that sufficient?
>> As part of a serialized document that needs to be  processed  by a UA
>> that does not know what an eventsource element is, it is not
>> sufficient. ... These transitional problems are due to deficiencies in
>> the text/html  serialization of HTML (... unable to syntactically
>> self-differentiate void from non-void elements like XML can with the
>> <tagname /> syntax).
> 
> Surely "the <tagname /> syntax" is exactly what Lachlan used above?

The "<tagname />" syntax is not allowed in HTML4, and thus existing 
libraries that have been designed to produce HTML4 will not use it.

On the other hand, what, except ideological reasons, stops us from allowing

  <tagname></tagname>

as well?

BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 11:23:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT