If I code in strict XHTML will it validate in transitional doctype?

[noonnope]

Yes, I get that about specs. No, i never said I expected to be said in the specs: "And for those elements that can have content, but at one point or another don't have one, we have this name for them: ..."

I was asking you, how do you call those elements not having content, though their definition in the specs is not "empty element".

<p></p> is not what specs mean by an empty element. But how do you call it? You.



And a possible moot point: an element lacking content IT IS what they mean by an empty element. Their further explanation justifies why they chose to make it so: empty, w/o permitting content on it.

[deathshadow60]

I was asking you, how do you call those elements not having content, though their definition in the specs is not "empty element".

<p></p> is not what specs mean by an empty element. But how do you call it? You.

Ah, ok. That version of the question I can follow.

Oddly enough I wouldn't call it anything special... That's just a paragraph. There is nothing 'special' about it just because it doesn't have any content, so I wouldn't refer to it in the first place or give it any special treatment just because it's empty; There's no reason to!

As a rule I wouldn't HAVE empty paragraphs in a document in the first place since that would likely be using a semantic tag as a spacer -- basically doing a job that should be done in the CSS as padding or margin... or even a line-break tag's job (though I hesitate to use those)

THOUGH if I was using the element as a presentational hook, I may refer to it as a "sandbag"... though typically I use DIV or SPAN for those since I don't want the sandbag to have a semantic meaning. (not that the meaning would matter with no content inside it)

IF I were to refer to it, I'd call it by the tag name, "empty paragraph"... as in "what the **** do you have the empty paragraph in there for?"

[xhtmlcoder]

Probably P with 'empty content' is the nearest phrase. In the above case it is actually an 'empty P' element. But obviously with regards to 'empty content' NOT to be confused with the keyword "EMPTY".

[zcorpan]

In HTML5 the elements that can't have content in text/html are called "void" elements.

[Stomme poes]

Zcorpan it's the same as the old EMPTY? why the name change?

[noonnope]

@xhtmlcoder

Probably "P with no content" alias "empty paragraph" alias "empty html <p> element" alias "empty element".

[xhtmlcoder]

Well looking at one of the HTML5 Drafts:

An empty element is any element that does not contain any content within it. In general, an empty element is just one with a start tag immediately followed by its associated end tag. In both HTML and XHTML syntaxes, this can be represented in the same way.

[...]

Some elements, however, are forbidden from containing any content at all. These are known as void elements. In HTML, the above syntax cannot be used for void elements. For such elements, the end tag must be omitted because the element is automatically closed by the parser. Such elements include, among others, br, hr, link and meta

So it looks like they are trying to clear any ambiguity with the word itself.

[Stomme poes]

Probably "P with no content" alias "empty paragraph" alias "empty html <p> element" alias "empty element".

Nah, that would make people think you meant
EMPTY
like

<!ELEMENT BR - O EMPTY                 -- forced line break -->
<!ATTLIST BR
  %coreattrs;                          -- id, class, style, title --
  >

[zcorpan]

Zcorpan it's the same as the old EMPTY? why the name change?

To avoid discussions like the one in this thread...

[noonnope]

A good thing. The void idea, not the discussion
I know I'll be using this word for the "old EMPTY" from now on

So, having that in mind, the discussion wasn't a bad one, right? An least one good thing came out of it.