- From: Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:43:11 -0800
Hello Ian, On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Elliotte Harold wrote: > > > > 9.1.2.1 states: > > > > Then, if the element is one of the void elements, then there may be a > single > > U+002F SOLIDUS character. This character has no effect [...] > > > > The second sentence is false [...] I suggest rewriting as follows: > > > > This character has no effect when the document is parsed by an HTML5 > parser. > > That's redundant. Parsing a document using this syntax with anything other > than an HTML5 parser would be non-conforming. > > > > However, if the document when parsed by an XML parser, the trailing > > slash converts the tag into an empty-element tag, and thereby makes an > > otherwise malformed element well-formed. > > This section has nothing to do with XML. If the document was parsed by an > XML parser, then there are much bigger problems afoot, such as MIME type > mislabelling, or a faulty UA. > Sometimes web developers parse (non-XML) HTML with an XML parser because it's the tool they have on hand. Consider a PHP developer trying to analyse an HTML page. If a PHP developer wants to analyse an HTML page; that developer may try to use SimpleXML <http://php.net/simplexml> because that's what they have on hand and know how to use. There's no SimpleHTML available in PHP. And while none of this is certainly our fault. This is a situation some web developers are going to run into. (What else are they going to use?) See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061201/829bfc26/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 09:43:11 UTC