Re: [xsl] Understanding why <tag></tag> is the way it is (was Re: [xsl] IE Client side transformation issue)

["Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/3/07, Norman Gray <norman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>    1. <p></p> (fully normalised form)
>    2. -> <p</p> (you didn't have to close tags if you were starting a
> new one immediately)
>    3. -> <p</> (use the null end tag </> to close the most recently
> started element)
>    4. -> <p/> (if you had redefined the NET string from '</' to '/').
>
> ...and <p/> was deemed to look adequately pretty (I might be
> misremembering this slightly, but it was something very like that).

...and so the empty element was born?


> Norman
> [drifting down memory lane]

That's some great information Norman - thanks!

If only there was a pub quiz question on how the empty element syntax
came about...  :)


-- 
http://andrewjwelch.com