Re: [bugs #8894] Non-paired tags not properly generated

[David Ayers]

Manuel Guesdon wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:20:54 +0100 Richard Frith-Macdonald 
> <richard@brainstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  >| 
>  >| On 14 May 2004, at 09:55, Nicolas Roard wrote:
>  >| 
>  >| > Le 14 mai 04, à 09:44, Manuel Guesdon a écrit :
>  >| >
>  >| >>
>  >| >> I can't find mention that this is incorrect:
>  >| >
>  >| > It's not incorrect HTML; but this is incorrect XHTML. Not sure if 
>  >| > GSWeb ever claimed to generate xhtml.
>  >| 
>  >| Probably not ... but IMO it should.  I think XHTML has been around 
>  >| quite long enough to be considered the 'current' format, and I'd prefer 
>  >| to think that GNUstep related stuff is not out of date by design.
>  >| 
>  >| So, while the initial bug report was technically wrong (it's not 
>  >| actually a bug), I think it's a very reasonable wishlist item.
>
> Yes. It's really not difficult to do but I don't know if it can raise 
> compatibility problems.
> Is it supported by all navigators ?

I agree that we may not want to drop HTML per se due to compatibility 
issues.  But I think that in this case using a empty element should also 
be safe.  I've tried to check the spec:

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG

But it only states that images must have a start tag and may not have an 
end tag.  So I'm unsure if empty elements comply. :-/

Cheers,
David