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

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:56:08 +0200
Message-ID: <48BC48D8.4080009@malform.no>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren 2008-09-01 10.54:

> 
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:09:03 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> 
> wrote:
>> 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>.

I'm sorry. Right you are. And, except for Opera, the textual 
content of <noembed> cannot be made visible (via CSS) either.

Would have been interesting to see how it worked in Netscape 4.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 19:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:58 UTC