On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:20:54 +0100 Richard Frith-Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| >| On 14 May 2004, at 09:55, Nicolas Roard wrote:
>| >| > Le 14 mai 04, � 09:44, Manuel Guesdon a �crit :
>| >
>| >>
>| >> 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| to think that GNUstep related stuff is not out of date by design.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
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnustep mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
