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

Re: Void elements in HTML

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:59:36 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.um02dmwm64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:48:47 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>  On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:32:41 +0100, Julian Reschke  
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Just allow "<command/>".
>>  That just becomes a mess (if you mean that <command> should just be an  
>> open tag), as <a/>, <script/>, <textarea/> etc. can't be made to work  
>> that way, <br></br> parses as <br><br>, etc. Would make things very  
>> confusing for authors.
>
> What I meant is:
>
> - no new void elements
>
> - allow empty element notation (thus "<command></command>" and  
> "<command/>" are equivalent) for all new and future elements.
>
> This aligns the notation for new elements with XML.

And makes them completely different from existing elements, as I tried to  
point out. Which is utterly confusing.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 13:00:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT