W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2009

[whatwg] Closing tags for empty content model

From: Dean Edwards <dean.edwards@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:27:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4AC67E5E.1020204@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:17 UTC