Change to book generation
matthias at winterdrache.de
Thu Oct 3 03:05:08 PDT 2002
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:55:04 -0400 "Seth W. Klein" <sk at sethwklein.net>
> Matthias Benkmann <matthias at winterdrache.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:35:35 -0500 Bruce Dubbs <bdubbs at swbell.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Not really that different. There are 12 diferences defined at w3c.
> > > The
> > I think the biggest problem is the syntax for tags without content,
> > such as <br/> instead of <br>. I don't think <br/> or <br></br> is
> > valid HTML, or is it?.
> It is not. However, Mozilla at least, will recognize it if it is
> written as "<br />". Note the space.
That is not the point. I was talking about HTML that is valid, not HTML
that is working in Mozilla (which doesn't even require the space; no
browser I know requires the space).
Anyway, at least according to the validator (which is the only thing that
counts as that's what people will use to check the validity claim of the
book), we are both wrong. <br/> validates just fine as HTML 4.01 Strict.
So I have to correct my initial statement. It is well possible to have a
non-trivial document that validates as both XHTML and HTML. Choosing the
XHTML doctype is of course preferable for such a document.
Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-dev