On 12/31/2012 08:59 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
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.
OK, I've added those tags.
By the way, allowing unrestricted use of the <meta> tag is poking a big
hole in the nice guarantees that Ur/Web gives, so I'd think twice before
exposing such with the FFI. ;)
_______________________________________________
Ur mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
