Yes. It is required for W3C's DOM APIs, which give access to parent nodes and allow all kinds of mutations whenever you want.
Event handlers + closures also create potentially complex situations you can't control, and you'll need a cycle-breaking GC to avoid leaking like IE6 did.
You can make a more restricted tree if you design your own APIs with immutability/ownership/locking, but that won't work for existing JS codebases.
No. In XHTML, you are required to close your p and li tags. In HTML, the "self-closing" tag is meaningless. That slash doesn't do anything. You can't self-close a <script> or <div> tag. It only appears to work for tags that are don't allow closing.
In HTML, you can add the slash, but it has no effect. The spec explicitly says that the slash does not close the element. The fact that it's "br" does. So you are allowed to add that slash. But adding it does not close the element.
> On void elements, it does not mark the start tag as self-closing but instead is unnecessary and has no effect of any kind.
And I’m surprised you even needed to ask because the term “XHTML” has been used consistently. It really shouldn’t be confusing for someone of your obvious technical capabilities
Edit 1:
> In XHTML, normal XML rules apply, as you say. That's consistent with what I've said earlier in this thread also.
Except you haven’t said anything consistently. You keep trying to “educate” people without understanding the point they were making to begin with.
People are there for reach. Politicians, celebrities. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer, Kaja Kallas, Ursula von der Leyen... If they don't see a problem, why should the Cloudflare CEO?
The complaints were that the UI was not customisable, with limited functionality, stubbornly did things the Mac way even if that was confusing to Windows users. The implementation was often slow and sometimes buggy.
But it had taste and attention to detail. It followed Apple's own HIG (design guidelines). The UI had some flashy details, but they had a purpose or at least didn't get in the way. I don't feel any of this in the current Apple designs.
It used to be the opposite! From the end of the PowerPC era throughout most of the Intel era, the Mac OS X was the main selling point, while the hardware was slow, overpriced and overheating (they've had some nice touches like MagSafe and "ears" on power supplies for the cable, but that didn't make up for everything else).
People used to build hackintoshes to get Mac OS X without paying Apple's RAM tax or suffer having mid-range laptop GPUs in the top-of-the-line desktops.
Apple's outstanding success with their ARM chips is more of an exception than the rule.
They've got the SF Symbols font, and probably assumed that's enough. Everyone has the same set of icons available, technically.
It seems that Apple has nobody left who has all three at the same time: taste, attention to detail, and authority to demand fixes. Having lots of people who have max two out of these three gives you designs of Microsoft and Glass Apple.
Event handlers + closures also create potentially complex situations you can't control, and you'll need a cycle-breaking GC to avoid leaking like IE6 did.
You can make a more restricted tree if you design your own APIs with immutability/ownership/locking, but that won't work for existing JS codebases.
reply