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
<https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Summerschool-at-the-NSA/ongoing-text.html>
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.
