> > So, <div> should become <div></div>.
> 
> Nope. You just cited it: it doesn't matter whether it's <div/> or
> <div></div>. A browser that treats both differently simply doesn't
conform
> to the spec.

I don't understand.  I'm it states that all element's in the xhtml dtd
that are not declared as empty should have a closing tag.  Those that
are declared as empty may or may not have a closing tag (in other words
may or may not use the empty element syntax).  

It doesn't say that <div></div> should be allowed to be written as
<div/>.


> > This is straying from the point.  The point is that if <foo></foo>
and
> > <foo/> are identical, and MSXML decides on an identity transform to
> > output <foo></foo> - why can't this be made available as a command
line
> > choice.
> 
> Because it doesn't matter for XML?

Nor do a lot of features, but they are here and being used everyday.
Saying 'it doesn't matter for xml' is being very short sited.  
 
> > It wouldn't break anyone's output, it would merely help 1000's
(probably
> > much more) of xslt'ers.  I simply cannot understand anyone arguing
> > against the addition of this.  Even the xml spec states that its
> > optional...
(http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210#sec-starttags).
> 
> It would help for people that try to feed XHTML into non-XHTML
compliant
> browsers. Why do you try this in the first place?

I give up....
 

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list