Lennart Jablonka dixit:
> Handling XHTML approximately by treating it as HTML-syntax HTML may be useful
> in stead of refusing to handle XHTML, but that is not implementing XHTML.
Yes, but the onus is on the *server* to provide the data in a format
the client can handle because native XHTML-as-XML support is not
mandatory for webbrowsers.
>> Empty-element tags may be used for any element which has no content,
>> whether or not it is declared using the keyword EMPTY. [397]For
>> interoperability, the empty-element tag SHOULD be used, and SHOULD only
>> be used, for elements which are declared EMPTY.
>
> I.e., <asdf></asdf> and <asdf/> are equivalent. There is a
> recommendation on what not to do.
This is wrong. Please read up the definition of “SHOULD” in
RFC what’shisname.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
“Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having
a peeing section in a swimming pool.”
-- Edward Burr
