On Aug 19, 4:12 pm, johnjbarton <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you open a bug report on this I will fix it.
>
> http://code.google.com/p/fbug/issues/list
>
Done.
But after discussion with somebody at W3C I now understand that I was
misinterpreting the spec: the section in question is informative not
normative, so the limitation implied by the words is not operative.
Both the XHTML and XML specs recommend not using the short form for
elements which are not defined as EMPTY, but they do not forbid it.
I'm therefore going to leave the issue I have raised, but I note that
what is being produced at present is not recommended, but not actually
wrong.
Apologies for having raised some confusion.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Firebug" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
