- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:35:16 +0200
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:17:29 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi> wrote: > 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? More confusing than: >>> <p></p> is an empty element since it has no content, but p is not a >>> void >>> element. > (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."?) No. > Previously, "empty element" was used as a technical term, and <p></p> > was not called an empty element. It seems reasonable to call it empty. It matches XML's definition of "empty". http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-empty > 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? "empty" is both a loaded word in that people think that <p></p> is "empty", and XML's definition of "empty" matches that. I think it's reasonable to try a different term for the "void element" concept. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 03:35:16 UTC