On 2005-07-26 12:01, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> > The only real use I've ever seen for a "null" comment declaration is to
> > suppress markup as in &
>
> Why not just do it properly as &? That way it works for both
> HTML and XHTML, whereas your version is only valid for HTML.
It's in no wa
David Håsäther wrote:
On 2005-07-26 03:33, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
...
The only real use I've ever seen for a "null" comment declaration is to
suppress markup as in &
Why not just do it properly as &? That way it works for both
HTML and XHTML, whereas your version is only valid for HTM
On 2005-07-26 03:33, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
[...]
> As useless as the first one may be
The only real use I've ever seen for a "null" comment declaration is to
suppress markup as in &
--
David Håsäther
Lachlan Hunt:
As useless as the first one may be,
Well, it's shorter than "", i.e. usable for source code emphasis.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
What kinds of comments should a text/html HTML5 conformance checker allow?
All valid SGML comments should be allowed.
... -->)
Yes, all of those are supported by browsers, so there is no reason not
too. But you missed two other valid variants that I can think
What kinds of comments should a text/html HTML5 conformance checker
allow?
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
