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

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:37:18 +0300
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <69EC3A27-11E7-41FB-A53D-DC0643778F35@robburns.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>

HI Anne,

On Aug 31, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:22:14 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de 
> > wrote:
>> On the other hand, what, except ideological reasons, stops us from  
>> allowing
>>  <tagname></tagname>
>> as well?
> <br></br> "means" <br><br> due to legacy parsing.

Legacy parsing for errors differs from one legacy UA to the next. It  
hasn't been specified. Or are you actually referring to the BR element  
which is not an unknown element (the topic of this thread). Again it  
hasn't been specified, but the major browser do probably handle it  
that way. Though like I said, not the topic of this thread.

Take care,
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 11:37:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC