[whatwg] Closing tags for empty content model
dean.edwards at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 15:27:42 PDT 2009
On 02/10/2009 23:19, Michael Kozakewich wrote:
> 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
> 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).
I was thinking of </script> when I requested </source>. They are at
least consistent in that they provide a "src" attribute indicating
pseudo-content. Can we allow </source> and save legacy Opera browsers?
Don't you work for Opera Anne? ;)
More information about the whatwg