Thanks, Colin, glad it was something like that. -- T.J. :-)
On Aug 20, 5:43 pm, ColinFine <colin.f...@pace.com> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
