- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:09:52 +0100
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Diego La Monica (IWA/HWG)" <d.lamonica@webprofession.com>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:06:43 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
...
> While XHTML imposes the requirement to explicitly close all elements, it
> is not required in HTML. In HTML, end tags for some elements, including
> those above, may be omitted. This is a feature inherited from HTML's
> origin as an application of SGML.
...
> I decided to omit the end tags from the markup because they were
> unnecessary, it made the example markup smaller and, IMHO, clearer to
> read. Therefore, since the current example actually is conforming, I
> have not changed it at this time. Please let me know if you are not
> satisfied with this response.
I have a personal preference for using well-formed XHTML for examples over
HTML - it is easier for me to see where the element boudaries are, so the
small price in verbosity gives greater clarity. It is also simpler to
copy/paste into an XHTML *or* HTML document and have it work.
As far as I know the group has never resolved a particular preference for
terse HTML markup over XHTML. Does anyone think that the value of such a
resolution would justify the debate it will entail?
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2008 17:10:01 UTC