W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Can the <body> tag be empty

From: <ddcc@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:01:17 -0500 (EST)
To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
cc: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.30L.0201141333290.25186-100000@department-of-alchemy.mit.edu>
I'm using XHTML 1.1. But my point is, in the DTD for
PUBLIC "-//W3C//ELEMENTS XHTML Document Structure 1.0//EN"
at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-struct-1.mod
the body's content is given as <!ENTITY % body.content "( %Block.mix; )+" >
meaning that the body cannot be empty (unless, I guess, you decide to make
Block.mix empty), whereas the text documentation at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_structuremodule
lists it as (Heading | Block | List)*, allowing the body to be empty. I was
just wondering if the two should be made consistent.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:

> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:33:43 +0900 (JST)
> From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
> To: ddcc@MIT.EDU
> Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Can the <body> tag be empty
>
> David <ddcc@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>
> > The XHTML modularization page seems to suggest that we can have empty body
> > tags, such as <body></body>.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_structuremodule
> > lists the contents of body as (Heading | Block | List)*, meaning that all
> > are optional.
>
> As the minimal content model.  That doesn't mean it's optional for
> all XHTML Family document types.
>
> > However, the XHTML validator at http://validator.w3.org won't let me have
> > empty bodies.
>
> Which version of XHTML you're using?
>
> Regards,
>
Received on Monday, 14 January 2002 14:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:41 UTC