Posted by David Dorward on 05/04/06 10:32

Mark Parnell wrote:

> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Spartanicus
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> declared in alt.html:
>
>> It is valid, but DTD validation has it's limitations, even more so for
>> XHTML, this is one of those limitations.
>
> So would you care to show some sort of reference as to why it is
> "incorrect XHTML" to use a closing tag on an empty element, since the
> part of the specs I quoted says that it *is* correct?

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

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#IDAJ13S

Which is news to me, and something that a lot of tools seem to get wrong.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

• Next in forum: Re: How to distinguish several <div>
• Prev in forum: Browser testing, FF, IE, Opera...Nestcape?
• Thread view: Re: W3C complience checker and conformance

[Reply to this message]