[whatwg] self-closing tags in html5
rescator at emsai.net
Tue May 3 05:01:37 PDT 2011
On 2011-05-03 00:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Kornel Lesi�~Dski wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:18:52 -0000, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> For example, markup such as the following is sadly common:
>>> <p/>Hello world!</p>
>>> I have therefore not changed the spec in response to this request.
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> That just makes the HTML syntax even more complicated and confusing. At
>> least at present it's consistent in this respect (although not in many
>> other respects).
> I'm kinda with Aryeh on this. I don't really see much value in adding yet
> another special case here. Consider how this will be in 30 years, once
> we've added another dozen elements: "Yes,<foo/> is a closed element. No,
> you can't do that with<p/>. Or<ul/>. You can do it with<bar/>, sure."
Yeah but something like <p/> hardly makes sense syntax wise, as it's
basically an empty paragraph.
I'm guessing that many are using <p/> or <p> with no closing equivalent
as the same as <br><br> (or <br /> <br /> )
Is there a need for say a <pbr> ? (short for paragraph break) default
behavior being the same as two <br>.
Then again getting folks to change would be hard, so maybe a <cp> and
</cp> would make more sense. (closed paragraph)
Myself I always tend to use <br><br> for readability when I don't feel
like the text should be split into different paragraphs.
And I use <p> and </p> for it's intended purpose, to markup actual
Now if <p> was turned into a synonym for <br><br> and </p> simply
ignored, I'd be happy to move to using say <cp> and </cp> for paragraphs.
Roger "Rescator" Hågensen.
Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/
More information about the whatwg