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
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
