[whatwg] Closing tags for empty content model
mkozakewich at icosidodecahedron.com
Fri Oct 2 15:19:36 PDT 2009
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk at opera.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:21 AM
> The problem with allowing this is that
> This does suck a little when introducing new void elements, but keeping
> the syntax consistent is worth it in my opinion.
But <script> has always required </script>, so it sounds like adding the
</script> would be the more consistent method. <br> and <img> can be kept
the way they are, because they aren't problems, and <script> has always been
a special case (even in HTML5).
There was a discussion, a few months back, about taking out the </script>
tag when a source is specified. I believe that ended with something like,
"we can't take it out without ruining support in all older browsers."
It makes sense to make <script> tags support </script> tags, even if they
aren't necessary, so that developers can put </script> tags in for older
browsers (at least until the older browsers finally die).
More information about the whatwg