"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3d341e7e@news.povray.org...
>   Besides, it makes sense. A link starts with the <a> tag and ends with
> the </a> tag. Leaving the </a> tag out is a syntax error. What should the

Not really. Browsers are expected to have the ability to infer a closing
tag when one should obviously be there. A good example would be the sequence
<tr><td>Some Text</tr>. I have left out a </td>, but any browser will infer
its presence and act as if it were supplied. This is a defined behaviour for
HTML browsers (or anything that can understand HTML).

In the case of the anchor tag with type NAME (e.g. <a name="">), there is
no 'link', as you refer above; it's an anchor, not a link, and in this case
there is no possibility of having any linked text (e.g. "<a name="foo">text</a>"
doesn't make sense).

In that case, the presence of a "</a>" is implied immediately after the <a ...>,
simply because it can't be any other way. This is the way browsers have worked
since the start, to my knowledge, and one that doesn't work that way is IMO
broken (and I don't care what the standards say, it's broken).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message