On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlo...@iglu.org.il> wrote:
> On Friday 23 Apr 2010 18:40:38 Eric Brine wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Shlomi Fish <shlo...@iglu.org.il> > wrote: > > > Thanks for providing it. However, it is not XHTML/XML-compliant > > > > Correct, HTML is not compatible with XHTML. > > I'm not sure even HTML 4.0 still allows stray opening tags (such as <p> or > <td> or > whatever). > "stray"? It most definitely allows the end tag to be omitted for certain elements. (Of those elements, I used P, LI, TBODY, TR and TD) . It even allows the opening tags of certain elements to be omitted. (Those elements are HTML, HEAD, BODY, TBODY and no other.) > > In fact, I couldn't make it make it compliant with both HTML and XHTML > > because I used HR. > > What is HR in this context? > The HR element. Valid Valid HTML XHTML --------- ----- ----- <hr> yes no <hr/> no yes <hr></hr> no yes > > > > > Is this HTML required by Perlmonks, or did you write it like that out > of a > > > > > different reason? > > > > "this HTML"? > > I meant HTML like the one you've written (see above). > I mean I don't know why you asked "Is this HTML required ..." instead of just "Is HTML required ...". Without that information, I can't answer your question. Could explain what aspect of the HTML I posted that you are asking about? If you're asking why I didn't include the optional tags, it's because it would be a waste of time. - Eric