Re: to </p> or not to </p>

Hi Jake,

Jacob Kjome <hoju@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> >I think the only thing that can be argued here is that it's more consistent
> >with the rest of the formatting.  Since minimization is a part of HTML,
> >neither form is really more correct.

When I say 'minimization', I mean in the SGML sense; where the closing tag is
can omitted based it declared that way in the DTD. I believe it can even be
optional only in certain contexts.  Attributes can also be minimize, leaving
off a value being different than not specifying the attribute. This is part of
what makes is so hard to write an sgml parser (and to learn sgml).  Caveat: I
am no SGML expert, and hope to keep it that way.

The beauty of XML is that this is determined just from the syntax, DTD is not
required.  Omitted end tags are determined by a different tag syntax, so
all the difficulty of SGML minimization is avoided.
 
> Yep, otherwise we'd exclude the end tag for stuff all the following:

Yes, inconsistent for no good reason (good == documented).

> And, actually, minimization is part of XHTML as much as it is for 
> HTML.  <br> in HTML is, after all, <br/> in XHTML.  Both are 
> minimized.  The difference in HTML is that some non-minimized elements 
> (mentioned above) don't require an end tag.

Technically, <br> isn't minimized in SGML sense, because it's not legal for it
to have a closing tag, this is the only form.

> I tend to disagree here.  There are only a few basic differences between 
> valid HTMl4.01 Strict and XHTML1.0 Strict, especially if one makes it a 
> practice to include optional end tags in the HTML.  The only real 
> difference is that tags where end tags are forbidden in HTML simply add a 
> forward slash at the end of the tag (just before the greater-than 
> sign).  Otherwise, they are exactly the same.  XHTML1.0 doesn't even 
> require an XML header, only a doctype which is perfectly compatible with 
> HTML documents.

For understanding new technology, understanding the similarities is important
and I can see how getting into this rigor can help people adjust to the rigor
of XML.  If this helps some people, it's still legal html, so why not?

For understanding why something work or doesn work a certain way, there are
other subtle differences in XHTML, such as like case sensitivity, attribute
specification, attribute value quoting, and white space handling come to mind.

> I like consistency and I'm pinging the group to make sure I'm not doing 
> something "risky".

Well, consistency is good with computer, and I certainly hope no modern
browsers is this broken, so go for it...

Mark