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

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:54:25 +0200
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ugsoczbs64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:09:03 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>  
> Would you not consider <embed> a self-closing element, like <p>? After  
> all, it can take one element, the <noembed> element.

Actually, it can't.

> My "HTML 4 unleashed" book from 1998 shows an example where <embed>  
> doesn't have a closing tag. But in the reference section it says that it  
> has one. And there is no problem finding references which says that one  
> should write <embed></embed>. Logically, it is the <noembed> element  
> which has created this confusion.

I suggest testing what browsers have actually implemented. It parses just  
like <img>.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 08:55:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC