On 11/3/10 7:01 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: > David E. Ross wrote: > >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: >>> David E. Ross wrote: >>>> In any case, get rid of the </p>, </li>, </dd>, and </dt> tags. >>>> They are not needed. Their presence makes your page look like tag >>>> soup. >>> >>> I agree with the rest of what you wrote, except for the above. All >>> elements should be closed, having an opening tag and a closing tag. >>> If you don't, you would fail Strict validation. >>> >>> <p>This is a paragraph.</p> >> >> From the W3C HTML 4.01 specification: >> >> 9.3.1 Paragraphs: the P element >> ... >> Start tag: required, End tag: optional >> >> See <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1>. > > Yes, I know what the spec says. But if you don't use closing tags in > your coding, it's like trying to read a group of sentences without > periods at the end. I did say "should" be closed, not "must". > > Oh, and if you ever have thoughts about advancing to XHTML or HTML 5, > you'll have to reinsert all those closing tags you took out. >
The advice in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html is against using XHTML unless what is wanted cannot possibly be obtained with HTML 4.01. HTML 5 is still in draft form as of 19 October. The test cases have not all been developed yet, and some existing test cases might have to be revised. Some W3C people have strongly objected to Micro$oft claiming that IE 9 is fully HTML 5 compliant when the test suite is incomplete and thus cannot support such a claim. Given all that, I will not use HTML 5 until it is finished, until it is a W3C formal recommendation. -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> I am again filtering and ignoring all newsgroup messages posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent because of the amount of spam from that source. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
