[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 15:44:36 +0200

> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andrew Welch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,...
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> I don't understand.  I'm it states that all element's in the xhtml dtd
> that are not declared as empty should have a closing tag.  Those that
> are declared as empty may or may not have a closing tag (in other words
> may or may not use the empty element syntax).

Nope. It says:

"Elements that are declared in the DTD as EMPTY can have an end tag or can
use empty element shorthand (see Empty Elements)."

That is, "<foo></foo>" is allowed and "<foo/>" is allowed. Just "<foo>" is
not, because that's not wellformed XML.

> > Because it doesn't matter for XML?
>
> Nor do a lot of features, but they are here and being used everyday.
> Saying 'it doesn't matter for xml' is being very short sited.

But after all you *are* using XSLT's XML output method. An in XML, it
doesn't matter. An application that claims compliance to the XML spec (such
as an XHTML browser) MUST accept both notations.

> > > 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?
>
> I give up....

Again: it's known that IE does not support XHTML. Why don't you simply serve
HTML instead?

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