On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Markus Ernst wrote:
>
> The favored example:
>
>
>
> would actually not break pages in legacy browsers, unless their
> functionality depends on the script. They would just not find and thus
> not execute the script, and possibly throw "function does not exist"
> errors.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Cready, James wrote:
> Except of course for the following:
>and
>
> And these "obsolete elements" still supported by legacy UAs:
> and
Those are just unclosed, they're not self-closing. If you use the
"/>" syntax it's not closing the tag, it's ju
>> No elements in text/html can be self-closing.
>
> Except of course for the following:
>and
>
> And these "obsolete elements" still supported by legacy UAs:
> and
Except, of course, that these are not self closing.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Cready, James wrote:
>> No elements in text/html can be self-closing.
>
> Except of course for the following:
>and
>
> And these "obsolete elements" still supported by legacy UAs:
> and
None of those are self-closing in the HTML syntax; they're al
> No elements in text/html can be self-closing.
Except of course for the following:
and
And these "obsolete elements" still supported by legacy UAs:
and
> Generally speaking I think we should avoid making the platform have too
> many redundant features, however illogical some of
Tab Atkins Jr. schrieb:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Cready, James wrote:
You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML
or the HTML 4 doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
tag the browser
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Cready, James wrote:
>
> Is there any good reason why a
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Recentish WebKit does actually respect the self-closing part of the
>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Cready, James wrote:
> You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML
> or the HTML 4 doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
> previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
> tag the browser will not execute an
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Cready, James wrote:
> You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML
> or the HTML 4 doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
> previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
> tag the browser will not execute an
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Cready, James wrote:
> You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML
> or the HTML 4 doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
> previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
> tag the browser will not execute an
You make a great point. But whether or not you use the XML/XHTML
or the HTML 4 doesn¹t matter much. Since like I showed in my
previous example: the instant you specify a src attribute on your opening
tag the browser will not execute anything inside the tags.
Regardless of whether or not you even
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Greg Houston wrote:
> This makes sense to me as well. Last week a user of my framework
> posted to the forums asking for help. The JavaScript was not loading,
> and it turned out he was trying to self-close the script tags in the
> header. So for at least some percen
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Cready, James wrote:
> Is there any good reason why a
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Cready, James wrote:
> Is there any good reason why a tag with the src attribute specified
> can’t be self-closing?
>
> I understand the need for a