- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 07:09:05 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> I don't follow the logic of that; if there is an open element for which > the closing tag is optional (e.g., <li> ..., if I remember correctly), > then the first </> must close the <li> -- it can't possibly close anything > else. I also feel that, if your second assertion is correct, then XML </><li> or </></> are longer than <li> or </ul>. > is less rigorous than it might be : requiring (say) I'm not saying it is a particularly good decision, although it does benefit humans as well - typically I have to put comments after "}" in C, or "end if" in VB.NET, because, even with proper indentation, they are difficult to match up properly.
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 06:39:40 UTC