in reply to Re^3: Add < /br> to Approved tags?
in thread Add < /br> to Approved tags?

I think the point is -- there is no valid </br> tag for a reason -- it's not valid.

Also, one thing that no one seems to have mentioned at all in this thread yet, is: why should one use the br element at all, be it in HTML or XHTML or whatever? Granted, even I occasionally do, but that has really to be a rare thing - most often I don't want to barely break lines within paragraphs, but I'm fine with splitting the text across paragraphs, thus using <p> tags. Having a background (although not a terribly vast experience) in TeX/LaTeX, which are all about good typography, I feel compelled to remind that that's the same recommendation that's usually made there, although the markup is completely different. Paragraphs are plainly separated by empty lines (or explicit \par commands, but you generally don't need to) while the breaks must be inserted with \newline or \\: thus in that case perhaps the UI makes it slightly more convenient to shape the text in paragraphs, than to use returns a' la average quadratic dumb wordprocessor luser...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Add < /br> to Approved tags?
by jhourcle (Prior) on Jun 20, 2007 at 17:56 UTC
    Also, one thing that no one seems to have mentioned at all in this thread yet, is: why should one use the br element at all, be it in HTML or XHTML or whatever?

    Postal addresses.

    At least, that was the justification for including it in HTML+ (aka HTML2).

    Personally, I would've preferred that <address> have been made line return preserving, similar to <pre>, and we never would've run into this issue.

      Postal addresses.

      Well, I suppose that in principle there are many other reasons for wanting such a beast: also, *ML languages are much more about fancy formatting stuff on a computer screen than about high quality typography than those others I mentioned - and even those let you conjure up ad hoc stuff of all kinds if you really want to.