- From: P.Taylor <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:38:44 +0200
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
David Woolley wrote: [snip] > I wouldn't have thought [</>] terribly useful in HTML because you can > only benefit from it when there are no open elements that have optional > closing tags. I guess it is not in XML to provide extra redundancy for > well formed-ness checking. I don't follow the logic of that; if there is an open element for which the closing tag is optional (e.g., <li> ..., if I remember correctly), then the first </> must close the <li> -- it can't possibly close anything else. I also feel that, if your second assertion is correct, then XML is less rigorous than it might be : requiring (say) <div class="Abstract"> <p class="First"> ... </p> ... </div> rather tnan the less verbose <div class="Abstract"> <p class="First"> ... </> ... </> is (IMHO) still lacking in rigour : if one wants more rigour, one should require <div class="Abstract"> <p class="First"> ... </p class="First"> ... </div class="Abstract"> since otherwise the two </div>s in <div class="Abstract"> <div class="Inner"> ... </div> ... </div> are no less ambiguous than two </>s would be. Indeed, even matching for CLASS is sloppy; for full rigour, one should match for ID. Philip Taylor
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 21:38:42 UTC