[whatwg] Empty elements
simonp at opera.com
Mon Aug 29 03:35:16 PDT 2011
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:17:29 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi>
> 29.8.2011 13:10, Simon Pieters wrote:
>>> In which way is "void" better than "empty"?
>> The sentence "<p></p> is an empty element since it has no content, but p
>> is not an empty element." is more confusing.
> More confusing than what?
More confusing than:
>>> <p></p> is an empty element since it has no content, but p is not a
> (Is that hypothetical sentence more confusing than "<p></p> is a void
> element since it has no content, but p is not a void element."?)
> Previously, "empty element" was used as a technical term, and <p></p>
> was not called an empty element.
It seems reasonable to call it empty. It matches XML's definition of
> If somewhat calls it that way, doesn't that just call for a correction
> and a pointer to a definition, rather than changing the term?
"empty" is both a loaded word in that people think that <p></p> is
"empty", and XML's definition of "empty" matches that. I think it's
reasonable to try a different term for the "void element" concept.
More information about the whatwg