- From: Jens Oliver Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:13:32 +0200
- To: markdhamill@gmail.com
- Cc: W3C WWW Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
> Thank you for this information. I wasn't aware the body tag was optional or > the html tag for that matter. I am sure there is some good reason for this, > but it seems inconsistent. The sample document is inconsistent in its closing of elements, however the specs aren’t that inconsistent once one considers HTML parsing rules (for example, an <li> start tag really implies that before it, any other <li> element must close). There probably are additional overviews over optional tags but see https://meiert.com/en/blog/optional-tags-in-html-4/ for an impression. When omitting optional tags it seems useful to do so consistently and omit all of them (unless there is ambiguity as with scenarios like <p><img> vs. <p></p><img>, where the latter produces an anonymous block element rendered differently from the former). -- Jens Oliver Meiert https://meiert.com/en/
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2017 13:14:18 UTC