- From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:30:13 -0800 (PST)
- To: <www-math@w3.org>
> to allow any of > > 1. <foo> > 2. <foo></foo> > 3. <foo/> > > when "foo" is a defined-empty element. Note also that usage 2 is > formally incorrect for a defined-empty element in HTML 4.01. > > I suggest that byte streams fed to HTML5 be allowed to have any of the > three forms above when an element is defined-empty. (I don't see any > explicit mention of defined-empty elements in the whatwg spec.) >From anyone from WhatWG: <blockquote> The simplest example is the XHTML "<br/>" which in HTML means "<br>>". Note that I didn't say Tag Soup compatible XHTML was a myth. I said HTML compatible XHTML is a myth. It is a simple fact that a valid XHTML1 document can never validate as HTML4, and vice versa. That is all that "HTML compatible XHTML is a myth" means. </blockquote> Moreover, so far as i know HTML5 is claimed to be Mozilla reply to next year XML Microsoft technology. HTML5 is designed to be not compatible with Microsoft XML (and MSIE) by default. Moreover, leaving <foo/> for empty tags not solve integration issues of MathML, think of <mrow/>, it would be incompatible with HTML5.
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 20:49:49 UTC