RE: how to close html tags : link, meta,...

> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andrew Welch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 5:14 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE:  how to close html tags : link, meta,...
>
>
>
> > > Sorry to go on but...
> > >
> > > <div> *is not* declared as empty, so it must be <div></div>
> > >
> > > <img> *is* declared as empty, therefore it can be <img/> or
> <img></img>
> > >
> > > That is my reading of the spec, please someone tell me if I am
> wrong.
> >
> > In which case I'd say the spec needs to be fixed.
> >
> > Either div has required content, in which case both "<div/>" and
> > "<div></div>" would be non-valid.
> >
> > If content is not required (which is the case), both notations MUST be
> > allowes, otherwise XHTML would not conform to the XML spec.
>
>
> There's a difference.  One is well-formed xml, the other is valid xhtml.
>
> <div/> is well formed xml, but not valid xhtml.

<div/> is well formed XML and valid according to the XHTML DTD.

> <div></div> is both well-formed xml, and valid xhtml.

No no no. It really doesn't matter for validity.

> One involves a dtd the other doesn't.  There's nothing wrong with the
> spec, its just when people see well-formed html they think its xhtml,
> which it isnt.

Of course it isn't.

You probably meant to say "well-formed xml". And yes, it isn't automatically
valid. But in this case it is.

Please prove me wrong with the example being rejected by an XML parser using
the XHTML DTD.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list