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

Re: Void elements in HTML

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:35:09 +0100
Message-ID: <495B750D.7070906@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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 

Sorry, of course I meant

      </br>

vs

      <br>

I'm willing to bet that 95% of the authors who have "<br></br>" inside 
text/html content do *not* want two breaks.

 > 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.)

So how many pages would we break if we actually made "<textarea/>" 
equivalent to "<textarea></textarea>"?


BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 13:35:52 GMT

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