It is semanticaly the same. And Firefox really treats <div/> etc. wrong way. Should we have a vote on this?
-Matej On 11/1/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yeah we are generating extra attributes > but do we introduce tags itself ? > > > On 11/1/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That's not entirely true. E.g. we generate unique ids for <script> > > elements, that is altering markup (this is necessary for header > > contribution filtering). > > > > I don't think it would harm to expend those tags. > > > > -Matej > > > > On 11/1/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > until now we have the policy that we don't alter the markup. > > > But we could expand all of them if needed. I don't mind to much > > > > > > > > > On 11/1/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually, I think that we might want to do this for all tags except > > > > for couple of selected ones, e.g. <hr /> > > > > > > > > This would also reduce confusion of new user when they do <span > > > > wicket:id="label'/> > > > > > > > > -Matej > > > > > > > > On 11/1/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I noticed that if you add empty <div /> tags to firefox, it treats > > it > > > > > like if you forgot to close it. That can cause weird behavior on > > ajax > > > > > replacements for example, as it treats the subsequent tags as > > children > > > > > of the <div /> tag. > > > > > > > > > > I think we should have a MarkupFilter that replaces all <div /> tags > > > > > with <div></div>. This semes to be also case for <span>, <p>, <b>, > > ... > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > -Matej > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
