[ic] item-options with closing options tag

Peter peter at pajamian.dhs.org
Wed Mar 2 23:03:21 EST 2005

On 03/02/05 18:43, Daniel Browning wrote:
> * Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> [2005-03-02 16:48]:
>>On 03/02/05 13:22, Daniel Browning wrote:
>>>Some developers (myself included) prefer to do without the closing 
>>></option>, since the HTML standard specifies that it is optional.  Less is
>>However, in the newer xhtml standards the closing </option> is mandatory 
> [Checks standard...] Aha, you are right.
>>and while I know that IC does not even attempt to comply to xhtml 
>>standards I think it might be a good idea to code ceartain things like 
>>this with the eventual thought that it would make it easier to 
>>transition to xhtml in the future if it ever becomes desirable.
> I agree, but you wont find me working on it.  Some parts of the new
> standard (e.g. <br/>) are not compatible with a few obscure browsers, as I
> learned a while back from Mike Heins.

Fair enough, which is why you won't see me use <br/> (or even the 
slightly more compatible <br /> ... note the space) unless I'm actually 
coding in xhtml.  However I was referring to the use of the closing 
</option> tag, though and that's fully backwards compatible.  For me 
it's just a matter of trying to get into good habits for future coding, 
but not at the expense of ceartain compatibilities.


More information about the interchange-users mailing list