Re: [Lynx-dev] lynx misrenders many *IN*valid xhtml5 pages on my site

[Lennart Jablonka]

Quoth Thorsten Glaser:
> > Handling XHTML approximately by treating it as HTML-syntax HTML may be useful
> > in stead of refusing to handle XHTML, but that is not implementing XHTML.
>
> Yes, but the onus is on the *server* to provide the data in a format
> the client can handle because native XHTML-as-XML support is not
> mandatory for webbrowsers.

I see we are in agreement that 
<https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Summerschool-at-the-NSA/ongoing-text.html> 
is not /invalid/ due to omission of space before /> or due to 
self-closing elements that aren’t EMPTY, that it is lynx that just 
doesn’t implement XHTML.

> > >  Empty-element tags may be used for any element which has no content,
> > >  whether or not it is declared using the keyword EMPTY. [397]For
> > >  interoperability, the empty-element tag SHOULD be used, and SHOULD only
> > >  be used, for elements which are declared EMPTY.
> >
> > I.e., <asdf></asdf> and <asdf/> are equivalent.  There is a
> > recommendation on what not to do.
>
> This is wrong. Please read up the definition of “SHOULD” in
> RFC what’shisname.

Sure, here it is:

        3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
           may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
           particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
           carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

I read that as: For the recipient of the XML document, 
<asdf></asdf> and <asdf/> are equivalent; the author needs to 
decide carefully if she is not to match the short form to EMPTY 
elements.  Which certainly isn’t to be ignored, but is irrelevant 
here.