- From: Tim Altman <web@timaltman.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:00:32 +0100
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:49:15 +0100, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote: > 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. Gah! Of course. Thank you. :) >>> 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. Got it. -- Tim Altman
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 16:00:32 UTC