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

[whatwg] Empty elements

From: Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:56:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5B7E59.7080903@bauglir.com>

On 29.8.2011 12:17, Jukka K. Korpela 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? (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?
Hi, it is not confusing at all, empty element is an element with no 
content (<p></p>), void element is element that can have no content... 
the difference is clear, but yes... void is not the best name

Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 04:56:09 UTC

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