Rick Frankel <r...@rickster.com> writes: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:59:32AM +0800, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: >> >> The " />" style doesn't validate for html4, that's what I was going on. >> It certainly doesn't make my browser explode, but I wanted that little >> green checkmark! If we can live with that, that's fine, or I can try to >> come up with a less hacky way of handling closing tags -- a macro >> maybe. > > It should validate. According to the w3c compatibility guidelines > (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/guidelines.html): > > C.2. Empty Elements > > Include a space before the trailing / and > of empty elements, > e.g. <br />, <hr /> and <img src="karen.jpg" alt="Karen" />. > Also, use the minimized tag syntax for empty elements, e.g. <br />, > as the alternative syntax <br></br> allowed by XML gives uncertain > results in many existing user agents. > > C.3. Element Minimization and Empty Element Content > > Given an empty instance of an element whose content model is not EMPTY > (for example, an empty title or paragraph) do not use the minimized > form (e.g. use <p> </p> and not <p />).
Right, but as the note at the top of that page says: "This appendix summarizes design guidelines for authors who wish their XHTML documents to render on existing HTML user agents." I read that as just a better statement of what I was trying to say earlier: self-closing tags will render in HTML4, but they're not _strictly correct_ HTML4. Try the validation link at the bottom of this page: http://ericabrahamsen.net/html4test.html It's not a disaster. I'm happy to do whatever needs to be done with the patch, whether that means dropping the closing-tags fix, re-implementing it, or whatever. It would be good to hear other HTML-users' opinions on this, if anyone has one! E >> The xmns declaration, on the other hand, seems quite meaningless for >> anything that isn't xhtml (even if it doesn't actually break), and it's >> only a couple of lines of code to deal with, I'd rather keep that in >> there... > > fair enough. > > rick
