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 14:22:40 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.um03f2qv64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:10:27 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> What's also utterly confusing is that
>
>    <br/>
>
> parses just like
>
>    <br>
>
> May be not confusing to experts like yourself, but certainly for many  
> authors.

I'd love to see data that back this up, but even when assuming it's true,  
it's something we can't change. Introducing new void elements (that behave  
identically to <img>, <br>, etc.) is at least internally consistent.  
Introducing yet another syntax for elements introduced post-HTML4 is not  
and will lead to even bigger confusion. (Authors are already pretty  
confused that they have write e.g. <textarea></textarea> rather than  
<textarea/>. See e.g. the amount of duplicates on  
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162653 Your suggestion would  
just make that worse.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 13:23:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC