Re: Void elements in HTML (Was: ZIP-based packages and URI references into them ODF proposal)

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Right, but we disagree on this, as noted earlier in this thread. I have to
>>> balance all the various needs here. Some of these needs are better satisfied
>>> by introducing lots of new void elements frequently; other needs 
>> Which particular need requires introducing void elements?
> 
> <command> would be basically unusable if you had to include an end tag 
> each time.

Just allow "<command/>".

>>>> Could you please explain (or point to an explanation) why exactly it 
>>>> needs to be known beforehand whether something is block-level or 
>>>> not? It's certainly not needed for serializing a DOM, so I assume 
>>>> the parser needs to know for some reason?
>>> Block-level elements have to be known by the parser so that optional 
>>> </p> end tags can be implied.
>> Just make the </p> end tags required in this case. Problem solved.
> 
> This solves the problem for people who want to extend the language to add 
> new block-level elements, and instead introduces a problem for authors who 
> ...

The proposal was to require the end tag *in this case* (where elements 
not defined in HTML5 are being introduced). How would it affect people 
not interested in doing that?

BR, Julian