[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Lynx-dev] A patch for lynx.

From: Walter Ian Kaye
Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] A patch for lynx.
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:30:43 -0700

At 07:32 p -0400 04/19/2007, Zephaniah E. Hull didst inscribe upon an electronic papyrus:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:15:31PM +0100, David Woolley wrote:
 Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:

 >of '<tag some_attributes />', which means fairly exactly
 >'<tag some_attributes></tag>'.

 No it doesn't.  In XHTML 1.0 written in *Non*-HTML compatible
 mode it has this meaning.  In HTML it has had a de facto meaning
 of simply <tag some_attributes>.

To verify here, is the / actually legal in any version of HTML or XHTML
that does not consider this a closing statement?

If so, does it actually have any _meaning_?

If the answer is no to either of these, then I simply _can't_ see this
as a valid reason not to parse this as stated above.

Because if an element requires an end tag then it requires an end tag, regardless of whether or not the start tag has a [garbage] "/" in it. HTML is not XHTML, and does not pretend to be. It's the other way around: XHTML pretends to be HTML.

Especially in a browser that has lynx's handling of <tag/foo/>.

(Try it if you never have, then come back with an explination of why we
should support that and _not_ support a usage that's not all that
uncommon in the wild.)

I think that has nothing to do with end tags in HTML.

At 07:25 a +0100 04/20/2007, David Woolley didst inscribe:
As a first thing, one should do a much more careful bugwise compatibility reverse engineering job to see whether, for
example, a missing </script> is handled correctly even when
<script src=.... /> is not used.

Exactly. :-)

who prefers well-formed HTML over any formedness of xhtml

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]