On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:17:29 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]>
wrote:
29.8.2011 13:10, Simon Pieters wrote:
In which way is "void" better than "empty"?
The sentence "<p></p> is an empty element since it has no content, but p
is not an empty element." is more confusing.
More confusing than what?
More confusing than:
<p></p> is an empty element since it has no content, but p is not a
void
element.
(Is that hypothetical sentence more confusing than "<p></p> is a void
element since it has no content, but p is not a void element."?)
No.
Previously, "empty element" was used as a technical term, and <p></p>
was not called an empty element.
It seems reasonable to call it empty. It matches XML's definition of
"empty". http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-empty
If somewhat calls it that way, doesn't that just call for a correction
and a pointer to a definition, rather than changing the term?
"empty" is both a loaded word in that people think that <p></p> is
"empty", and XML's definition of "empty" matches that. I think it's
reasonable to try a different term for the "void element" concept.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
