- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:24:27 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
- Cc: GVE <gve@altervista.org>
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > ><script type="text/javascript" src="script.js" /> > > > >It should be: > > > ><script type="text/javascript" src="script.js"></script> > > There is no specification that says so, There is. The XML specification (which applies to all XML based languages including XHTML) says: "Empty-element tags MAY be used for any element which has no content, whether or not it is declared using the keyword EMPTY. For interoperability, the empty-element tag SHOULD be used, and SHOULD only be used, for elements which are declared EMPTY." http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-starttags So it simultaneously says that the construct is allowed and should not be used. And naturally this implies the statement "It should be: - -". Well, for some values of "should". The XML specification's wordings are somewhat strange, and "for compatibility" is defined as "describing a non-binding recommendation"; but "should" itself means less than "shall". > the HTML Working Group only > shared their observation that using the latter works better in HTML user > agents for which it follows that if that is a concern, you are better > off using the latter. And the XML specification says basically the same in a more general framework. > While such observations are indeed of some use, > there is nothing wrong with not reporting such observations, so this is > not a bug. Indeed. And reporting an error when there is no markup error, as defined by the formal rules of SGML or XML and by the DTD used, would be a bug. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 03:28:36 UTC