[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Lynx-dev] lynx misrenders many *IN*valid xhtml5 pages on my site

From: Lennart Jablonka
Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] lynx misrenders many *IN*valid xhtml5 pages on my site
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 23:17:14 +0000

Quoth Thorsten Glaser:
Handling XHTML approximately by treating it as HTML-syntax HTML may be useful
in stead of refusing to handle XHTML, but that is not implementing XHTML.

Yes, but the onus is on the *server* to provide the data in a format
the client can handle because native XHTML-as-XML support is not
mandatory for webbrowsers.

I see we are in agreement that <> is not /invalid/ due to omission of space before /> or due to self-closing elements that aren’t EMPTY, that it is lynx that just doesn’t implement XHTML.

 Empty-element tags may be used for any element which has no content,
 whether or not it is declared using the keyword EMPTY. [397]For
 interoperability, the empty-element tag SHOULD be used, and SHOULD only
 be used, for elements which are declared EMPTY.

I.e., <asdf></asdf> and <asdf/> are equivalent.  There is a
recommendation on what not to do.

This is wrong. Please read up the definition of “SHOULD” in
RFC what’shisname.

Sure, here it is:

        3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
           may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
           particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
           carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

I read that as: For the recipient of the XML document, <asdf></asdf> and <asdf/> are equivalent; the author needs to decide carefully if she is not to match the short form to EMPTY elements. Which certainly isn’t to be ignored, but is irrelevant here.

reply via email to

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