Hello Ian, On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Elliotte Harold wrote: > > 9.1.2.1 states: > > Then, if the element is one of the void elements, then there may be a single > U+002F SOLIDUS character. This character has no effect [...] > > The second sentence is false [...] I suggest rewriting as follows: > > This character has no effect when the document is parsed by an HTML5 parser. That's redundant. Parsing a document using this syntax with anything other than an HTML5 parser would be non-conforming. > However, if the document when parsed by an XML parser, the trailing > slash converts the tag into an empty-element tag, and thereby makes an > otherwise malformed element well-formed. This section has nothing to do with XML. If the document was parsed by an XML parser, then there are much bigger problems afoot, such as MIME type mislabelling, or a faulty UA.
Sometimes web developers parse (non-XML) HTML with an XML parser because it's the tool they have on hand. Consider a PHP developer trying to analyse an HTML page. If a PHP developer wants to analyse an HTML page; that developer may try to use SimpleXML <http://php.net/simplexml> because that's what they have on hand and know how to use. There's no SimpleHTML available in PHP. And while none of this is certainly our fault. This is a situation some web developers are going to run into. (What else are they going to use?) See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
