[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,...


Subject: RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,...
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:47:24 +0200

> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andrew Welch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:37 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,...
>
>
> > Nope. XHTML *is* XML. A browser that does understand <div></div> but
> > doesn't
> > understand <div/> clearly does not conform to the XHTML standard.
>
> All elements other than those declared in the DTD as EMPTY must have an
> end tag. Elements that are declared in the DTD as EMPTY can have an end
> tag or can use empty element shorthand
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.3
>
> So, <div> should become <div></div>.

Nope. You just cited it: it doesn't matter whether it's <div/> or
<div></div>. A browser that treats both differently simply doesn't conform
to the spec.

> This is straying from the point.  The point is that if <foo></foo> and
> <foo/> are identical, and MSXML decides on an identity transform to
> output <foo></foo> - why can't this be made available as a command line
> choice.

Because it doesn't matter for XML?

> It wouldn't break anyone's output, it would merely help 1000's (probably
> much more) of xslt'ers.  I simply cannot understand anyone arguing
> against the addition of this.  Even the xml spec states that its
> optional... (http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210#sec-starttags).

It would help for people that try to feed XHTML into non-XHTML compliant
browsers. Why do you try this in the first place?

Julian


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list



Current Thread
Keywords