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

Re: end tag rules

From: Klaus Schmid <klaus.schmid@wtal.de>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 19:01:00 +0100
Message-ID: <00a301c4c4f3$be732250$fe7aa8c0@DESKTOP>
To: <www-validator@w3.org>

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Jukka "Yucca" Korpela wrote:

>The tags </p> and </body> (as well as the following </html>) can be
>omitted in "classic" (pre-XHTML) HTML. But why do you ask? It's always
>been a good practice to include them, and the gain in file size achieved
>y omitting them is _really_ small.

If omitted, the page did not validate. I should have mentioned this in the
first place.

Here the page without the last closing tags
http://jedscripts.freelinuxhost.com/index_not_valid.htm

The question is whether this is really invalid (and maybe why).

>By the way, note that first link, though valid, does not conform to
>specifications, since it uses the view-source: (pseudo-)URL, which has not
>been included into any published specification.

>On the other hand, the entire paragraph is worse than useless, see
>http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon
>(replacing the icon by equivalent text does not really make things much
>better).

I don't think the links are useless, because each time the page is edited
the page can be conveniently checked for errors. For example the validator
detected an unescaped "&", much faster than manually myself.

In your linked page you said:
"People who put "Valid HTML" icons on their pages presumably have a sincere
desire to promote validity and the goals behind that. But they forget that
for the great majority of users, all those validity stamps are just
something between line noise and obscurity"

I don't see why small links could be interpreted as line noise.
Should we abandon promotion only because it may look obscure to some
visitors?

-- Klaus
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 18:01:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:15 GMT