- 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