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

[whatwg] Empty elements

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:35:16 +0200
Message-ID: <op.v0y002riidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
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

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