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

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.

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