Subject: Re: Understanding why <tag></tag> is the way it is (was Re: IE Client side transformation issue)
From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:34:47 +0100
|
On 8/3/07, Norman Gray <norman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 1. <p></p> (fully normalised form)
> 2. -> <p</p> (you didn't have to close tags if you were starting a
> new one immediately)
> 3. -> <p</> (use the null end tag </> to close the most recently
> started element)
> 4. -> <p/> (if you had redefined the NET string from '</' to '/').
>
> ...and <p/> was deemed to look adequately pretty (I might be
> misremembering this slightly, but it was something very like that).
...and so the empty element was born?
> Norman
> [drifting down memory lane]
That's some great information Norman - thanks!
If only there was a pub quiz question on how the empty element syntax
came about... :)
--
http://andrewjwelch.com
|
Cart
