Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: > <div/> and <p/> may pass the validator, but that is most certainly a > bug. A quick look through the XHTML 1.0 DTD's reveals only ten tags > that may be closed using the short form, and I am unable to find any > documentation on the W3C web site to support anything otherwise. > > <area /> > <base /> > <br /> > <col /> > <hr /> > <img /> > <input /> > <link /> > <meta /> > <param /> > > Using any other shorthandled elements would result in HTML rendering > engines choking and giving unpredictable results.
I'm not so sure - I think relatively modern renderers are quite capable of dealing with both <div/> and <p/> without causing any problems. <p/> instead of <p></p> is not unusual. > What I was suggesting is that your belief is flawed because your test > was flawed itself. No e-mail will ever be just <head></head>. Ignoring > the fact that a <title> tag is required as a minimum (although many > e-mails probably omit it), the <head/> form is invalid as well. Accepted, but it doesn't change the problem in html_eval_tag() - the code doesn't attempt to validate html, it just does a simple regex check for a balanced tag, but doesn't accept or ignore the short tag version with no content. > I believe that the behavior of HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD is valid in this > case, as <head/> is invalid HTML (despite what the validator says) and > should not be used by anyone. True, but html_eval_tag() will fire on _any_ short tag. /Per Jessen, Zürich
