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

I don't <p> in your pool, so please don't <p> in my HTML.
   -M@

On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 10:45  AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:

>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm wondering what peoples' thoughts are about DOM serialization and 
> dealing with <p> elements.  Currently, XMLC treats the <p> tag 
> specially, classifying it as a tag that shouldn't have an end tag 
> written for it..  This seems to have been an arbitrary preference of 
> early developers of XMLC.  I, for one, do not agree with it, although 
> I have an idea why it was done.  Some early browsers rendered <p></p> 
> differently than <p>.  As such, it became common for HTML developers 
> to exclude the </p> in their markup.  Then again, some developers 
> standardized on the more XHTML-like <p></p> and printing out <p> 
> messes up their formatting.  With today's smarter browsers, all of 
> this should be moot.
>
> So, does anyone have a problem with modifying XMLC to force <p> tags 
> to be ended with </p>?  Obviously, either form is legal HTML4.01, but 
> ending <p> tags with </p> seems like the more correct thing to do and 
> matches up with the the next wave of HTML which is XHTML.  People 
> really should get used to this at this point, but I'm asking for 
> opinions here because I don't want to break everyone's layouts 
> unnecessarily.
>
> Jake
>
> _______________________________________________
> XMLC mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.enhydra.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/xmlc
>