Re: Agree: empty P, container PP [Was: Hot Metal and HTML ]
"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 14:36:19 EDT
Message-id: <9406151833.AA00821@ulua.hal.com>
Reply-To: html-ig@oclc.org
Originator: html-ig@oclc.org
Sender: html-ig@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@oclc.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-ig@oclc.org>
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 <9406151405.aa09822@dali.scocan.sco.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:
>>
>> <h1>head</h1>
>> <p></p>
>> <ul>
>> <li><p>xxx</p>
>> </ul>
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.
Get it?
Dan