3 ms·
It's really just better to keep a closing p tag, so you don't have to care about consequence when you edit that part later... Does not type </p> save anything?
by h1d 10y ago
It's really just better to keep a closing p tag, so you don't have to care about consequence when you edit that part later...
Does not type </p> save anything? No.
- hellcow 10y agoIt actually saves at least 4 bytes per closing tag. On a larger webpage, that could easily add up to saving hundreds or thousands of bytes per request. That's a significant savings, especially for mobile.
- h1d 10y agogzip makes it insignificant. I just took a sample page out of here which has bunch of p tags open and closed, gzipped the original and the one with </p> stripped, difference was 39 bytes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)
- emn13 10y agoIronically, if end tags were truly non-optional, html might actually compress better, because it would have less entropy (less choices). In practice, it would allow for a compression filter to represent the tree structure in a less redundant form with fewer corner cases to deal with (much like compressors do for binaries, for example).
- rhizome 10y agoThousands? Over 250 p tags on a page?
- RubyPinch 10y agoI honestly prefer it when editing <p> It naturally acts as a clean way to segment paragraphs of text <p> And most of the tag-closing rules are roughly matched with the rules of using p tags altogether. <p> e.g. you can't have a div within a paragraph, so closing or not closing, divs can only come after paragraphs!.