[whatwg] Empty elements
Bronislav.Klucka at bauglir.com
Mon Aug 29 04:56:09 PDT 2011
On 29.8.2011 12:17, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 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? (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. 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?
Hi, it is not confusing at all, empty element is an element with no
content (<p></p>), void element is element that can have no content...
the difference is clear, but yes... void is not the best name
More information about the whatwg