W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Peculiar validation results for certain XHTML 1.1 documents

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:19:20 +0000
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050107091920.GA5744@us-lot.org>

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:49:13PM +0200, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, T.B. van der Molen wrote:
 
> > 0. Is <li /> correct XHTML 1.1 (and correct XHTML 1.0 Strict)?
 
> Yes, but not recommended, since you should use the notation only for
> elements with EMPTY declared content.

The XHTML 1.0 spec (section 4.3) says:

  All elements other than those declared in the DTD as EMPTY must have
  an end tag. Elements that are declared in the DTD as EMPTY can have an
  end tag or can use empty element shorthand (see Empty Elements).

I can't find anything to contrict this in the XHTML 1.1 spec. So
doesn't this mean that <li /> is incorrect (although valid) XHTML 1.1?

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 09:19:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:18 GMT