- From: Michael Kozakewich <mkozakewich@icosidodecahedron.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:19:36 -0500
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:21 AM > The problem with allowing this is that > <br></br> > means > <br><br> > ... > This does suck a little when introducing new void elements, but keeping > the syntax consistent is worth it in my opinion. > But <script> has always required </script>, so it sounds like adding the </script> would be the more consistent method. <br> and <img> can be kept the way they are, because they aren't problems, and <script> has always been a special case (even in HTML5). There was a discussion, a few months back, about taking out the </script> tag when a source is specified. I believe that ended with something like, "we can't take it out without ruining support in all older browsers." It makes sense to make <script> tags support </script> tags, even if they aren't necessary, so that developers can put </script> tags in for older browsers (at least until the older browsers finally die).
Received on Friday, 2 October 2009 15:19:36 UTC