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

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:13:09 +0200
Message-ID: <48BBC035.9080009@lachy.id.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org

Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 2008, at 23:01, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>> <eventsource src="foo"/> is allowed.  Isn't that sufficient?
> 
> If a rule can be adopted to avoid one or the other types of additions, then 
> a generic authoring tool presented with a DOM containing an unrecognized 
> element could adopt policy that is future proof: either <name></name> or 
> <name/>, depending on the approach selected.
> 
> Looking at the existing elements and additions, the rule that Lachlan
> suggested seems appropriate.

Note that my suggestion to use the trailing slash only relates to 
serialising known void elements using a tool like XSLT that is clearly 
optimised for serialising XML, not a generic way of representing any 
empty element, and especially not in any way that would have an effect 
on parsing.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 10:13:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT