- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 23:11:26 +0100 (BST)
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > Hi Validator Team, > > Could you help with this question about whether > <a name="foo"/> is valid xhtml 1.0 (I think it isn't) or, if > not, why the validator doesn't complain? It's perfectly valid. Nothing in XHTML precludes <a> being empty, and XML rules require equivalence of <a/> and <a></a>. The only thing it violates is the non-normative and problematic Appendix C. > > This page was sent as text/html but uses tags of the form <a name="foo" > > /> which does not actually close the <a> tag in conforming HTML4 > > user-agents (I'm using safari 1.2.2). Indeed, this is why HTML4 is better-suited to the web today than XHTML. Alternatively, if tou have valid but non-Appendix-C-conforming XHTML, you can use mod_xhtml to ensure that it is Appendix-C-compliant when it is served. -- Nick Kew
Received on Monday, 2 August 2004 18:11:57 UTC