3 ms·

Edit: my original comment (retained below) is wrong about this being malformed, and it's completely valid. Some more info here: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/mul

Edit: my original comment (retained below) is wrong about this being malformed, and it's completely valid. Some more info here: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/syntax.html#optional-tags https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/syntax.html#optional-... --- Original comment: The fact that browsers are able to handle malformed HTML doesn't mean that you should do it that way. There's no meaningful benefit that I can think of, and the potential to break a ton of things that aren't as lenient.

Pxtl 9y ago
The new craziness is basically that HTML is no longer structured as a tree, no more closing tags that don't semantically hold data, etc.
irrational 9y ago
My understanding is that it is not malformed, but actually a part of the spec. Maybe someone else has a link to the appropriate part of the spec, but following someone else's link to the spec and reading it for myself is how I learned that it is not malformed.
- SippinLean 9y ago
  >Tag omission in text/html: >An html element's start tag can be omitted if the first thing inside the html element is not a comment. >An html element's end tag can be omitted if the html element is not immediately followed by a comment. https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-html-element https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-html-element
Yaggo 9y ago
It's not malformed in the traditional meaning, the HTML5 spec actually says that HTML, HEAD, BODY, etc. unambiguous tags can be omitted.
rimliu 9y ago
This is not malformed HTML. In fact, optional tags were in older HTML specs and are perfectly legal. Even in HTML 4.01 Strict. See: http://rimantas.com/bits/minimal_html.html http://rimantas.com/bits/minimal_html.html
c_shu 9y ago
Removing optional tags is recommended here: https://google.github.io/styleguide/htmlcssguide.html https://google.github.io/styleguide/htmlcssguide.html

Pxtl 9y ago

The new craziness is basically that HTML is no longer structured as a tree, no more closing tags that don't semantically hold data, etc.

irrational 9y ago

My understanding is that it is not malformed, but actually a part of the spec. Maybe someone else has a link to the appropriate part of the spec, but following someone else's link to the spec and reading it for myself is how I learned that it is not malformed.

SippinLean 9y ago
>Tag omission in text/html: >An html element's start tag can be omitted if the first thing inside the html element is not a comment. >An html element's end tag can be omitted if the html element is not immediately followed by a comment. https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-html-element https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-html-element

Yaggo 9y ago

It's not malformed in the traditional meaning, the HTML5 spec actually says that HTML, HEAD, BODY, etc. unambiguous tags can be omitted.

rimliu 9y ago

This is not malformed HTML. In fact, optional tags were in older HTML specs and are perfectly legal. Even in HTML 4.01 Strict. See: http://rimantas.com/bits/minimal_html.html http://rimantas.com/bits/minimal_html.html

c_shu 9y ago

Removing optional tags is recommended here: https://google.github.io/styleguide/htmlcssguide.html https://google.github.io/styleguide/htmlcssguide.html