On Aug 20, 9:39 am, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi Colin,
> > > > Incidentally (and not on topic for your question)
> > > > <td/>
> > > > is not valid in either HTML or XHTML.
> > > It's valid XHTML for an empty table cell.
> > Wrong. It's a common misconception (which I had myself until
> > recently).
> If so, it's a misconception the W3C's own validator shares.

Apologies - I was wrong. After discussion with somebody from W3C I now
understand that the section I was quoting is informative not
normative. I do think that it is misleading however (and I'm sure I
discovered this apparent limitation when something - I thought it was
firefox - threw out a construct like <div/>).

Both the XML and XHTML specs recommend not using the short form for
elements which are not defined as EMPTY, but they do not forbid it.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to