- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:21:19 -0500
Stewart Brodie wrote: > "Robert Sayre" <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote: >> Better? This is an opinion, and it's not backed up by data. So far, it >> looks like Sam has the data on his side. People do it, and it tends to >> work interoperably. Let me emphasize two words in Roberts snippet above: SO FAR. I encourage everybody to show me the data. > Except when it doesn't. > > For example, here's a fragment of hotmail.com's signup page, served as > "text/html". It's the only example I've come across to date: > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 > Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" dir="ltr"> > ... > <select id="iRegion" name="pff00000000010004" /> > <script>...</script> > </select> > ... The only example to date, and not one that matches my criteria, which I will now restate with portions emphasized: In HTML5, there are a number of elements with a content model of empty: area, base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, link, meta, and param. If HTML5 were changed so that these elements -- AND THESE ELEMENTS ALONE -- permitted an optional trailing slash character, what percentage of the web would be parsed differently? Can you cite three independent examples of existing websites where the parsing would diverge? - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 08:21:19 UTC