Thanks Ian - so is it fair to say that self-closing singletons should be _allowed_ but not _required_ -- that either syntax would be accepted as valid HTML5? That only makes sense to me -- it's backward-compatible while allowing XHTML compatibility as well.
Your point about '<p />test' being the same as '<p>test</p>' is very interesting. That's not something I've ever done (that I'm aware of, anyway), and it surprises me that it works that way. As a divergent example -- at least in IE6 -- '<div />' is treated as an inline element rather than a block...that's probably non-standard behavior, and in any case it was a surprise when I encountered it. In case you can't tell, I haven't made it through the whole proposed spec yet, so apologies if my questions and observations are springing from ignorance. On 11/29/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The argument is that the self-closer "/" is an XMLism, and that HTML5 has nothing to do with XML, so there's no reason for it to apply here. Note that in HTML, this: <p/> test ...regardless of what this discussion results in, will always be treated exactly the same as: <p> test </p> ...because, for legacy reasons, there's no way we can treat "/" as a self-closer in any tag other than void tags (like <img> or <br>). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
