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 16:39:56 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Philip Taylor" <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.um09surg64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:03:51 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> I just checked some (~10) that are reported for lang:html, and it seems  
> that a significant amount of them actually reflect empty textareas, be  
> it by mistake, or because the content actually is XHTML (potentially  
> served as HTML).

I'm assuming here you had this search:

http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=%3Ctextarea[^%3E]*%2F%3E+lang%3Ahtml


> These cases would be *fixed*, not *broken*, by allowing the empty  
> element notation.

Really?

dojo/1.0.2/dijit/tests/form/Form.html (result 1) and  
trunk/Jmol-documentation/script_documentation/examples-11/save.htm (result  
2) depend on <textarea/> being treated like <textarea>.

eformmail-2.0/doc/example_form.html (result 3) would indeed work better  
with <textarea/> meaning <textarea></textarea>. (But then it might be that  
it's an XML document with the wrong file extension given that it uses the  
XHTML namespace and all.)

trunk/database/ui/create-object.html (result 4) is the fourth result, also  
works better with <textarea/> meaning <textarea>.

frontend/application/demobrowser/source/demo/io/HttpRequest_1.html (result  
5) would indeed work better with <textarea/> meaning  
<textarea></textarea>. (Though the difference hardly matters as far as I  
can tell.)

TurboGears-0.9a7/docs/docs/tutorials/wiki20/page3.html (result 6) the  
<textarea/> here is inside a CDATA block which is inside another (properly  
closed) <textarea>. It seems to be some kind of Python templating  
language. (The next result is identical.)

tapestry-4.0-alpha-3/framework/src/test-data/context20/Three.html (result  
8) doesn't really look like HTML (jwcid attributes?).

increasing-form-usability-example.html (result 9) has  
<textarea/></textarea>.

trunk/index.html (result 10) depends on <textarea/> meaning <textarea>.


In conclusion:

In 4/10 <textarea/> should mean <textarea>.

In 2/10 <textarea/> should mean <textarea></textarea>. (Though both are  
demos and don't seem to have had much testing.)

In 3/10 there is no HTML.

In 1/10 it doesn't matter.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 15:40:43 UTC

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