3 ms·
Well, then they were wrong, because it's always been part of every HTML spec. Perhaps they were thinking of XHTML, which did require all tags because it was ba
by niconii 4y ago
Well, then they were wrong, because it's always been part of every HTML spec.
Perhaps they were thinking of XHTML, which did require all tags because it was based on XML.
- nicoburns 4y agoI believe before html5 they weren't required, but what the parsed DOM tree looked like wasn't clearly defined if they weren't, and in practice different browsers did it differently meaning you could very easily end up with it rendering differently in different browsers. html5 fixed that.
- niconii 4y agoOh, for sure, actually parsing HTML was awful before HTML5. The spec sometimes diverged from how browsers actually interpreted HTML, and error correction basically boiled down to browsers trying to reverse-engineer each other to figure out how they handled broken HTML. HTML5 was a godsend for actually standardizing all of that.
- anjbe 4y agoThis is not correct. What you’re describing sounds like how HTML5 standardized parsing of invalid HTML, but that is not the same thing as implicit closing tags, which have have always been valid, correct HTML producing an unambiguous, clearly defined result.