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

Re: xhtml Validator bug?

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0410210615050.21767@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

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."

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

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:30:46 UTC