Stewart Brodie wrote:
"Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Better? This is an opinion, and it's not backed up by data. So far, it
looks like Sam has the data on his side. People do it, and it tends to
work interoperably.
Let me emphasize two words in Roberts snippet above: SO FAR.
I encourage everybody to show me the data.
Except when it doesn't.
For example, here's a fragment of hotmail.com's signup page, served as
"text/html". It's the only example I've come across to date:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0
Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; dir="ltr">
...
<select id="iRegion" name="pff00000000010004" />
<script>...</script>
</select>
...
The only example to date, and not one that matches my criteria, which I
will now restate with portions emphasized:
In HTML5, there are a number of elements with a content model of
empty: area, base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, link, meta,
and param.
If HTML5 were changed so that these elements -- AND THESE ELEMENTS
ALONE -- permitted an optional trailing slash character, what
percentage of the web would be parsed differently? Can you cite
three independent examples of existing websites where the parsing
would diverge?
- Sam Ruby
