W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2004

Re: [Fwd: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-i18n-html-tech-char-20040509/]

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 23:11:26 +0100 (BST)
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0408022304020.999@hugin.webthing.com>

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

> Hi Validator Team,
> Could you help with this question about whether
> <a name="foo"/> is valid xhtml 1.0 (I think it isn't) or, if
> not, why the validator doesn't complain?

It's perfectly valid.  Nothing in XHTML precludes <a> being empty,
and XML rules require equivalence of <a/> and <a></a>.  The only thing
it violates is the non-normative and problematic Appendix C.

> > This page was sent as text/html but uses tags of the form <a name="foo"
> > /> which does not actually close the <a> tag in conforming HTML4
> > user-agents (I'm using safari 1.2.2).

Indeed, this is why HTML4 is better-suited to the web today than XHTML.

Alternatively, if tou have valid but non-Appendix-C-conforming XHTML,
you can use mod_xhtml to ensure that it is Appendix-C-compliant when
it is served.

Nick Kew
Received on Monday, 2 August 2004 18:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:42 UTC