Re: Agree: empty P, container PP [Was: Hot Metal and HTML ] "Daniel W. Connolly" <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 14:36:19 EDT
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Agree: empty P, container PP [Was: Hot Metal and HTML ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org.COM>, Murray Maloney writes:
>What's your point? I'm probably being thick, but I don't see it.
Well... I misspoke a bit when I said..
>> But you can't omit start tags of empty elements:
Had I said "You can't omit the start tags of elements with no
content," it might have been clearer.
The SGML spec is more precise:
>> b) the content of the instance of the element is empty
This is different from:
> <P> is not an empty element and it
But it is exactly the case in:
So the problem with inferring the whole P element (start tag, end tag,
and all) in this case is that the resulting P element doesn't have any
content (i.e. [to muddle things a bit more] it's content is empty) and
that makes it illegal to omit the start tag.