Purely from XML perspective ... http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-element section 3.1
Perhaps I'm missing something but <a></a> or <a./> are both considered empty elements. Of course <a/> SHOULD be used if in DTD it is declared as EMPTY. Br's, Marius On Jan 9, 8:01 pm, "John Nilsson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah here it is:http://www.wlmark.com/xhtml-html.php > > about half way down is a dicussion about <br />, browsers, xml vs sgml and > such matters. > > BR, > John > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 6:50 PM, John Nilsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > As it should. I don't think even the XML standard say that <tag></tag> is > > equvalent to <tag/>. I've had problems withd DTDs or Schemas that only > > allowed one form for some definitions. > > Now if you mean IE6 then XML isn't on the topic either way as it only > > supports HTML. IIRC the HTML standard (before version 4) standardized <tag/> > > to mean new line no matter what and <br> is of course a stand alone new line > > even in HTML 4. Maybe </br> shouldn't be treated as a new line. I guess if > > the browser is in tag soup mode it is the sane thing to do. > > > BR, > > John > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:27 PM, David Pollak < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> Folks, > > >> IE barfs on <br></br> (it treats them as 2 BR tags). What other tags are > >> in this category in IE? > > >> Thanks, > > >> David > > >> -- > >> Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net > >> Collaborative Task Managementhttp://much4.us > >> Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp > >> Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" 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/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
