- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:03:51 +0100
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Philip Taylor wrote: > > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> > post-HTML4 is not and will lead to even bigger confusion. (Authors are >> > already pretty confused that they have write e.g. >> <textarea></textarea> >> > rather than <textarea/>. See e.g. the amount of duplicates on >> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162653 Your suggestion >> > would just make that worse.) >> >> So how many pages would we break if we actually made "<textarea/>" >> equivalent to "<textarea></textarea>"? > > If I search for the pattern (?i)<textarea[^>]*/> in about 130K pages > from dmoz.org earlier this year, then all I find is: > > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0013/boal.shtml -- <textarea > id="frmComment" name="comment" rows="6" cols="30"/></textarea> > > http://www.hockeycanada.ca/ -- partbody += "<textarea id=\"" + qn + "\" > name=\"" + qn + "\" class=\"survey\" cols=\"" + qwidth + "\" rows=\"" + > qheight + "\" />" + qa + "<\/textarea>"; > > http://www.arhitektura.co.yu/ -- <textarea type="text" cols="27" > class="inputbox" rows="4" name="msg" maxlength="80" onkeypress="return > handleEnter(this, event)"/></textarea> > > Only the second of those would break (and only if qa != ""). So it's not > a relatively widespread issue in that set of the pages. > > > http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=%3Ctextarea%5B%5E%3E%5D*%2F%3E finds > more that would break: > ... I just checked some (~10) that are reported for lang:html, and it seems that a significant amount of them actually reflect empty textareas, be it by mistake, or because the content actually is XHTML (potentially served as HTML). These cases would be *fixed*, not *broken*, by allowing the empty element notation. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 15:04:33 UTC