- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:46:15 +0100 (BST)
- To: James Craig <work@cookiecrook.com>
- cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, James Craig wrote: > I was referring to the closing slash on empty elements. If you are > referring to something like <em /> then yes, it will break, but what's > the point of an empty em, anyway? <br />, <hr />, <img />, <meta />, David just told you why that's wrong, but his point seems to have gone right over your head. An SGML-compliant browser encountering <br /> will *display* a line break followed by a greater-than symbol, which is just untidy loose text. Same applies to <img />, <hr /> - the slash closes the tag so the greater-than is loose text. With <meta /> the situation is a good deal worse, for reasons you can find regularly rehearsed on the www-validator mailinglist. > point seems to have co > etc. all work fine in 'older' and 'newer' browsers. Does emacs still (as it used to) apply SGML correctly and show up that error? Anyone here using it for browsing? > One of the main reasons I'm using XHTML is for forward compatility with > new agents that /may/ only accept XML. Then when that happens, offer them a suitable transform and serve them your documents as xhtml. Elementary. -- Nick Kew
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 14:46:22 UTC