On 02/10/2009 23:19, Michael Kozakewich wrote:
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <ann...@opera.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:21 AM
The problem with allowing this is that
<br></br>
means
<br><br>
...
This does suck a little when introducing new void elements, but keeping
the syntax consistent is worth it in my opinion.
But <script> has always required </script>, so it sounds like adding the
</script> would be the more consistent method. <br> and <img> can be kept
the way they are, because they aren't problems, and <script> has always
been
a special case (even in HTML5).
There was a discussion, a few months back, about taking out the </script>
tag when a source is specified. I believe that ended with something like,
"we can't take it out without ruining support in all older browsers."
It makes sense to make <script> tags support </script> tags, even if they
aren't necessary, so that developers can put </script> tags in for older
browsers (at least until the older browsers finally die).
I was thinking of </script> when I requested </source>. They are at
least consistent in that they provide a "src" attribute indicating
pseudo-content. Can we allow </source> and save legacy Opera browsers?
Don't you work for Opera Anne? ;)
-dean
