Subject: RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : link, meta,... From: "Andrew Welch" <AWelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:32:17 +0100 |
> > 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). It doesn't say that <div></div> should be allowed to be written as <div/>. > > This is straying from the point. The point is that if <foo></foo> and > > <foo/> are identical, and MSXML decides on an identity transform to > > output <foo></foo> - why can't this be made available as a command line > > choice. > > 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. > > 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.... XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : , Julian Reschke | Thread | RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : , Julian Reschke |
RE: [xsl] how to close html tags : , Julian Reschke | Date | [xsl] pass malformed HTML through t, Jaques, Yves (FIDI) |
Month |