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

Reply via email to