Excerpts from Adam Chlipala's message of Mon Dec 31 21:51:43 +0800 2012: > Ruling out children of tags that shouldn't have children is one thing > which might be worth addressing, but is that the only reason to support > registration of new singletons? I mostly view the singletons list as > for compatibility with browsers that don't think in terms of XML, so > that it shouldn't be growing now that all the browsers are ready for > XHTML. New tags will get proper XHTML support to begin with. > > We could save a few characters here and there on pages by using </> > instead of <></>. Is there a more compelling reason than that to make a > change to Ur/Web?
Aha, it looks like I misremembered the XHTML spec; <></> is permitted but dis-recommended for BC reasons. In that case, probably rounding out the rest of the empty tags (base, meta, param, area, col--meta is the most important thing) and not bothering with the empty syntax may be right. Edward (Unrelatedly, these days, XHTML is seeming more and more of a dinosaur. For one thing, nearly no-one serves XHTML with the correct Content-Type, and there's this HTML5 thing...) _______________________________________________ Ur mailing list [email protected] http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
