Okay, okay...I changed <div class='separatorBar'/> to <div
class='separatorBar' /> but there's no change in behavior. This issue
about a space before the "/>" is a 1999 issue. I can't believe the
latest version of Firefox needs that space. What's more, *both* IE and
Firefox are rendering differently based on whether or not I use <.../>
vs. <...></...>. Both browsers are consistent in this respect.
As usual, I should have been more explicit. I'm using (trying to use)
XHTML 1.0 Strict. Here's the DTD I'm using: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
I'm not using the xml prolog so IE 6 is not in "quirks mode".
Actually, forget about IE 6 -- it's hopelessly out of date from a
standards perspective. I am concerned about the way Firefox is
rendering it. Firefox seems to generally be pretty standards compliant.
So, still I get the same behavior. Is there something special in
Appendix C I'm missing?
BTW, what is "f'ups" and "c.i.w.a.h" mean?
--
Tony LaPaso
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn***************************@193.229.0.31...
"Tony LaPaso" <tl*****@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm not sure if this is an HTML issue or CSS issue but it's weird.
It's basically an HTML issue; f'ups set accordingly.
I've been working w/XML for 5+ years and it's always been true that
you can use a shorthand notation for an empty element like this:
"<fred/>" is the same as "<fred></fred>"
It's been true all the time and it still is true that the XMLized
version of HTML, called XHTML, which is what you are really trying to
use, is not ready for Web use. At least not without the precaution of
fooling IE & Co. into seeing it as old HTML, by applying Appendix C.
(If you don't know what Appendix C means, you haven't been paying
attention when you've read c.i.w.a.h. or your XHTML primer - or you
found a very poor primer.)
<div class='separatorBar'></div><p>hello</p>
<hr/>
<div class='separatorBar'/><p>hello</p>
<hr/>
These should be equivalent, right?
They are equivalent by XML specification. The same specification
tells
you should not use "self-closing" tags except for elements with EMPTY
declared content, when "interoperability" matters, and on the Web it
surely does. Ref.:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-starttags
On the other hand, an empty div element is almost always a symptom of
bad design, and the class name virtually confirms this.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/