[wp-hackers] WP issues

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

On 6 Jun 2007, at 01:54, Charles wrote:

>>> Since HTML constructs like "<p></p>" are perfectly valid, HTML
>>> obviously allows the solidus on empty tags.
>>
>> Can you please cite something?
>
> Sure.
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwiltgen.net 
> %2Fempty
> .html
>
> View source for http://wiltgen.net/empty.html to see the empty tag,  
> solidus
> and all.

<p></p> is valid. I never said otherwise. I said <p/> is invalid as  
an empty tag. That point still stands (the validator marks it as  
valid under such a test document, as it is a valid NET tag, which has  
a completely different meaning).

>
>> [1]: http://www.is-thought.co.uk/book/sgml-9.htm#NET
>
> HTML is not SGML.

HTML is. I've explicitly cited the spec yet you refuse to accept what  
the spec says? What's unclear about "HTML 4 is an SGML application  
conforming to International Standard ISO 8879 -- Standard Generalized  
Markup Language [ISO8879]."?


- Geoffrey Sneddon