- From: Dean Edwards <dean.edwards@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:27:42 +0100
On 02/10/2009 23:19, Michael Kozakewich wrote: > From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk at 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). > I was thinking of </script> when I requested </source>. They are at least consistent in that they provide a "src" attribute indicating pseudo-content. Can we allow </source> and save legacy Opera browsers? Don't you work for Opera Anne? ;) -dean
Received on Friday, 2 October 2009 15:27:42 UTC