We totally agree - it was in no way my intention to state that the <br
/> output is invalid XML, but it sure looks odd or, in your words, not
customary. I am using MyFaces with facelets where it is customary to
output handwritten XHTML tags in your view xml files, and when I
handwrite a br tag it is of course written <br/>, so next to the <br />
tags from MyFaces it shows that the output is a mixture of syntaxes.
Has anyone else got some comments about tag output customization before
we move on to filing an RFE somewhere?
Randahl
Jeff Bischoff wrote:
Randahl Fink Isaksen wrote:
Because it also states here
http://www.w3.org/TR/html/#h-4.6
That the correct way to write empty tags like br is <br/> with no space.
I see nothing in section 4.6 of the linked document that supports your
assertion. What it actually says is:
"Empty elements must either have an end tag or the start tag must end
with />."
So, as far as the XHTML standard is concerned, all of the following
are valid:
<br/>
<br />
<br />
<br></br>
> You can compare this to the problem with <script/> not working on IE.
> The intermediate solution is to output <script></script>, which works
> fine. But as soon as IE7 has found its way to most IE users, I think it
> is time to output the tag in the correct way, namely <script/>.
These are both valid expressions of the tag under the spec. I think
perhaps you are saying "correct" where it would be more accurate to
say "customary." Are the minimized forms cleaner, nicer, more elegant?
I would say yes. But that does not make the other forms incorrect.
In any case, I see nothing wrong with having the option to output in
different forms. (e.g. compatible, minimized) After all, we do have
the PRETTY_HTML option in tomahawk already. So clearly some of us at
least are concerned about the appearance of the generated code. Maybe
you can get some support for your idea and get some dev involved.
Otherwise, you would be stuck having to provide a patch yourself.
Regards,
Jeff Bischoff
Kenneth L Kurz & Associates, Inc.
