W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2011

[whatwg] Empty elements

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:17:29 +0300
Message-ID: <4E5B6739.3080105@cs.tut.fi>
29.8.2011 13:10, Simon Pieters wrote:

>> In which way is "void" better than "empty"?
>
> The sentence "<p></p> is an empty element since it has no content, but p
> is not an empty element." is more confusing.

More confusing than what? (Is that hypothetical sentence more confusing 
than "<p></p> is a void element since it has no content, but p is not a 
void element."?)

Previously, "empty element" was used as a technical term, and <p></p> 
was not called an empty element. If somewhat calls it that way, doesn't 
that just call for a correction and a pointer to a definition, rather 
than changing the term?

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 03:17:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:35 UTC