- From: Steve Runyon <s.runyon@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:21:47 -0500
Thanks Ian - so is it fair to say that self-closing singletons should be _allowed_ but not _required_ -- that either syntax would be accepted as valid HTML5? That only makes sense to me -- it's backward-compatible while allowing XHTML compatibility as well. Your point about '<p />test' being the same as '<p>test</p>' is very interesting. That's not something I've ever done (that I'm aware of, anyway), and it surprises me that it works that way. As a divergent example -- at least in IE6 -- '<div />' is treated as an inline element rather than a block...that's probably non-standard behavior, and in any case it was a surprise when I encountered it. In case you can't tell, I haven't made it through the whole proposed spec yet, so apologies if my questions and observations are springing from ignorance. On 11/29/06, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > The argument is that the self-closer "/" is an XMLism, and that HTML5 has > nothing to do with XML, so there's no reason for it to apply here. > > Note that in HTML, this: > > <p/> test > > ...regardless of what this discussion results in, will always be treated > exactly the same as: > > <p> test </p> > > ...because, for legacy reasons, there's no way we can treat "/" as a > self-closer in any tag other than void tags (like <img> or <br>). > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061129/ae43e059/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 12:21:47 UTC