Re: No generalized empty element in HTML

Arnaud Le Hors (lehors@w3.org)
Fri, 01 Aug 1997 17:28:02 +0200


Message-ID: <33E20082.913C742F@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 17:28:02 +0200
From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@w3.org>
To: WWW-HTML List <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: No generalized empty element in HTML

Charles E. Carroll wrote:
> 
> Lars Eighner wrote:
> >
> >For example the name anchor is often kludged with &nbsp;
> >as is done many, many times in the HTML draft itself.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand.  I thought
> 
> <a name="foo"></a>
> 
> was fine and dandy?  What's the purpose of using
> 
> <a name="foo">&nbsp;</a>
> 
> instead?  (In fact, the former construction goes through the
> "Kinder, Gentler" HTML Validator as HTML 4.0 just fine.)

Empty anchors are indeed valid, and this has actually been confirmed by
the HTML WG recently. Unfortunately, many browsers out there failed to
correctly handle empty anchors so I, for one, use the second form to
avoid possible problems.
-- 
Arnaud Le Hors - W3C, User Interface Domain - www.w3.org/People/Arnaud