- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:49:15 +1100
Tim Altman wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:48:57 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Tim Altman wrote: >>> >>> May OBJECT and CANVAS be treated as empty elements, i.e. <canvas /> and >>> <object /> if there is no fallback content? >> >> I don't understand your question. > > Let me rephrase: Is it valid for the object and canvas elements use the > empty element syntax? HTML: No, XHTML: Yes. >> If you mean "Can the string '<object/>' be treated as an empty element >> tag", the answer is no. > > You seem to have answered my question here. Why not? Because it is XML syntax, not HTML syntax. According SGML rules, <foo/> has a different meaning from the same syntax in XML. According to the new HTML5 parsing rules (due to complete lack of support for SGML), the '/' is an easy parse error and is essentially ignored. Backwards compatibility reasons prevent the XML meaning from being retrofitted into HTML. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 15:49:15 UTC