bug-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bugs #8894] Non-paired tags not properly generated


From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: [bugs #8894] Non-paired tags not properly generated
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 11:06:22 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Manuel Guesdon wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:20:54 +0100 Richard Frith-Macdonald <address@hidden> 
wrote:

>| >| On 14 May 2004, at 09:55, Nicolas Roard wrote: >| >| > Le 14 mai 04, à 09:44, Manuel Guesdon a écrit :
 >| >
 >| >>
 >| >> I can't find mention that this is incorrect:
 >| >
>| > It's not incorrect HTML; but this is incorrect XHTML. Not sure if >| > GSWeb ever claimed to generate xhtml. >| >| Probably not ... but IMO it should. I think XHTML has been around >| quite long enough to be considered the 'current' format, and I'd prefer >| to think that GNUstep related stuff is not out of date by design. >| >| So, while the initial bug report was technically wrong (it's not >| actually a bug), I think it's a very reasonable wishlist item.

Yes. It's really not difficult to do but I don't know if it can raise 
compatibility problems.
Is it supported by all navigators ?


I agree that we may not want to drop HTML per se due to compatibility issues. But I think that in this case using a empty element should also be safe. I've tried to check the spec:

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG

But it only states that images must have a start tag and may not have an end tag. So I'm unsure if empty elements comply. :-/

Cheers,
David





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]