3810 2006-10-06 11:01:04 +0000 Doesn't correctly validate non "empty" elements that use shortcut 2009-06-23 15:39:05 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator check HEAD PC Linux NEW P2 normal --- 1 iDunno ot glen.84 www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 12341 0 iDunno 2006-10-06 11:01:04 +0000 When using XHTML, according to the specification (XHTML1 spec, section 4.3, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.3) it is required that any element that has not got EMPTY declared in the DTD should always use the form <tag></tag>, but testing this, for example with a simple XHTML document containing <div /> passes validation. 12412 1 ot 2006-10-13 02:38:47 +0000 Hi Brett, (In reply to comment #0) > When using XHTML, according to the specification (XHTML1 spec, section 4.3, > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.3) it is required that any element that has > not got EMPTY declared in the DTD should always use the form <tag></tag>, but > testing this, for example with a simple XHTML document containing <div /> > passes validation. My interpretation of the specification is: * 4.3 says end tags are necessary, unlike in HTML <= 4.01 However, according to XML rules, for elements without content, minimization such as <foo /> is equivalent to having a start and end tag for the element. * 4.6 says [[ Empty elements must either have an end tag or the start tag must end with />. ]] * The (informative) appendix C for the compatibility of XHTML 1.0 documents served as text/html specifies that [[ Given an empty instance of an element whose content model is not EMPTY (for example, an empty title or paragraph) do not use the minimized form (e.g. use <p> </p> and not <p />). ]] That is, however, beyond the realm of validation, and an informative guideline, as far as I can tell. This aspect of the specification is confusing to me, I confess. Partly because "empty elements" are not defined anywhere, and are sometimes meant as "elements defined as EMPTY in the DTD", sometimes as the generally accepted definition of an element without content. Discussion threads I could find on the matter seem to dodge the question by stating that non EMPTY (as in, not declared EMPTY in the DTD) should never be empty (as in, no content), and that <div /> makes no sense. Still, my interpretation of the spec is that <div /> is a valid and well-formed construct, however not recommended for content served as text/html. That's probably worth asking the HTML working group, responsible for the edition (and exegesis) of the spec, for clarifications. I'll try to get their attention on this bug report. Thanks. 25576 2 709 glen.84 2009-06-14 12:05:31 +0000 Created attachment 709 Self-closing anchor tag can break IE8 layout One thing to note is that a self-closing anchor tag can break a layout in Internet Explorer 8. See attachment. 25675 3 iDunno 2009-06-23 15:39:05 +0000 Just wondering if there's any movement on this ticket... it appears that the validator still (incorrectly, IMO, and by the looks of various browsers, in their interpretation of the spec) doesn't produce and error or warning for documents containing empty elements that aren't declared as EMPTY. (e.g. <div />). Thanks, Brett Parker 709 2009-06-14 12:05:31 +0000 2009-06-14 12:05:31 +0000 Self-closing anchor tag can break IE8 layout ie8-self-closing-anchor.htm text/html 406 glen.84 PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBYSFRNTCAxLjAgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiIgImh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnL1RSL3hodG1sMS9EVEQveGh0bWwxLXRyYW5zaXRpb25h bC5kdGQiPg0KPGh0bWwgeG1sbnM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzE5OTkveGh0bWwiIHhtbDps YW5nPSJlbiIgbGFuZz0iZW4iPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQoJPHRpdGxlPklFOCBTZWxmLWNsb3NpbmcgQW5j aG9yPC90aXRsZT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5Pg0KCTwhLS0gPGEgbmFtZT0iZ29vZCI+PC9hPiAt LT4NCgk8YSBuYW1lPSJiYWQiIC8+DQoJPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0icG9zaXRpb246YWJzb2x1dGU7Ij4N CgkJT25lIFR3byBUaHJlZSA8YSBocmVmPSIjIj5Gb3VyPC9hPg0KCTwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0K PC9odG1sPg==