- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:43:13 +0100
- To: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 14:12 -0400, Stephane Corlosquet wrote: > There are only 10 EMPTY tags in HTML 1.0, and neither div nor span is > part of these. I looked in XHTML 1.1 and didn't find anything. The > RDFa DTD [2] does not declare new EMPTY tags either. Can someone point > me to some specs or a DTD which explains why the empty tag notation is > allowed in RDFa? If you read the XHTML 1.0 spec, you'll find that <div/> is perfectly valid. Appendix C discourages it in favour of <div></div>, but Appendix C is informative, not normative. XHTML 1.1 was written as more of a "pure XML application" with backwards-compatibility with non-X HTML less in mind, so takes the they-parse-exactly-the-same-under-XML-rules approach. RDFa is built on XHTML 1.1 rather than XHTML 1.0, thus inherits the "who cares whether you use <div></div> or <div/>?" philosophy - in theory. In practice, if you're serving RDFa using the text/html Content-Type, you'll want to pay attention to the Appendix C guidelines of XHTML 1.0, and avoid writing <div/>. This is true for any XHTML-family language, not just RDFa - in theory <div/> and <div></div> are identical, but in practise, served as text/html, they're parsed very differently. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 18:43:54 UTC