[ic] item-options with closing options tag
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