in reply to Add < /br> to Approved tags?

Just one question, why do people use </br> (update: either here or elsewhere), since BR is a element that has no content, as defined by W3C. It can be handily written as <br> or <br />. Allowing <br></br> is just silly, and allowing </ br> would produce non-valid documents.

Even if other sites think it is legitimate, it does not follow they are correct, or that we should do the same.

Just because sloppy markup is handled gracefully by browsers, doesn't mean it has to be sanctioned. Don't use it, and then you won't have to patch Perlmonks to allow it :)

• another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Add < /br> to Approved tags?
by roboticus (Chancellor) on Jun 21, 2007 at 13:09 UTC

    I'm a prior offender: In my case it's due to a "light" understanding of HTML and XML. I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that empty tags (p, br, &tc.) should have the "closing" flag for completeness. But as you can see, the only completeness is in my ignorance! 8^)

    I don't develop websites, I just generate a few static pages of data. I tend to use boilerplate (e.g., XSLT) and fill in the blanks. So I've seen a good bit of *ML, but can't claim to "know" it. Thus, when I write from scratch, I type what I *think* works, and fix bits until the receiving program quits bitching.

    ...roboticus

    P.S. Now that I've (just) modified my PM settings to be as picky as possible on the HTML, I just had to learn how the consarned p tag works. (As you can see, above I thought that p was one of the empty tags.)
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion