tags:

views:

493

answers:

15

This is one of those things that you read once, say "aha!" and then forget. Exactly my case.

Why is the line-break tag in xhtml preferentially written with a space <br /> and not in the also ok format <br/> ? I remember the reason was interesting, and as you can imagine it's not easy to find with google.

For sure it's not an issue of xml well-formedness. From W3C

[44]    EmptyElemTag    ::=    '<' Name (S Attribute)* S? '/>' 

   Empty-element tags may be used for any element which has no content, whether
   or not it is declared using the keyword EMPTY. For interoperability, the 
   empty-element tag should be used, and should only be used, for elements which 
   are declared EMPTY.

Examples of empty elements:

<IMG align="left"  src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/WWW/w3c_home" /> 
<br></br> 
<br/>

So the space at the end is optional.

+11  A: 

If I recall correctly it's simply because some older browsers had problems with a self-closing tag without a space before the slash. I doubt it's an issue nowadays, but a lot of developers (myself included) got into the habit of including the space.

Edit: Ah, here we are:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines

Include a space before the trailing / and > of empty elements, e.g. <br />, <hr /> and <img src="karen.jpg" alt="Karen" />. Also, use the minimized tag syntax for empty elements, e.g. <br />, as the alternative syntax <br></br> allowed by XML gives uncertain results in many existing user agents.

Matt Hamilton
+4  A: 

<br /> is valid (old) HTML, while <br/> is not. If you are serving your XHTML as XML, it doesn't matter. If you are serving it as text/html, then it needs to be valid HTML in addition to being valid XHTML. (Why serve XHTML as HTML? Because IE doesn't understand XHTML as XML, and because no major browser will start rendering XHTML mid-way through downloading the text, but they will do that to HTML. My blog appears to load slowly not because the site is slow, but because the browser won't start rendering the page until everything has been fetched. I hate browsers.)

jrockway
This is the real reason. HTML doesn't have the self-closing tag syntax — whether a tag needs to be explicitly closed is a function of the kind of tag it is (e.g., `<br>` doesn't while `<div>` does). When you write `<br />`, an HTML parser sees a `<br>` tag with an empty attribute called "/" (just like the empty "checked" attribute for inputs). Since the `<br>` tag is already self-closing in HTML, this works the same in both HTML and XML modes.
Chuck
@Chuck. I've seen that explanation before, but I can't say I believe it. If it were so then renderings of the DOM with say Firebug, or Hixie's Live DOM Viewer should show the attribute as /="", but they don't. See here: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0Atext%3Cbr%20checked%20%2F%3E (Apologies for putting a "checked" attribute on a br element - I know it's not valid but it demonstrates my point.)
Alohci
@Alohci: That's an implementation detail of Firefox. Going purely by the HTML standard, there is no `<br/>` tag.
Chuck
Plain false: the only valid br element in HTML 4.01 is `<BR>`. `<br />` or `<br/>` are both invalid tag soup, but the former has less problems in real browsers.
ntd
"<br /> is valid (old) HTML." No, it isn't, but browsers cope with it. The advice I've seen it to use spaces if you use the text/html MIME type. You don't need them if you use application/xhtml+xml.
TRiG
+5  A: 

A little background to add to Matt Hamilton's answer.

A least one problem browser was Netscape 4. A quick check shows that in that browser, <br/> (i.e. no space) doesn't cause a line break. In fact, it doesn't appear to do anything. <br /> (i.e. with space) does perform a line break.

When creating polyglot documents that can behave as XHTML or HTML (Note: "behave as" - not "valid") it's necessary to use either <br /> or <br></br>. However, in old browsers, and even in modern browsers when rendering a page in quirks mode, </br> behaves like <br>, so <br></br> produces two line breaks.

Alohci
I would say... **facepalm** for the `</br>` producing a line break :)
Stefano Borini
It's because one person did it like that once, whined that it didn't work, and then the browsers started supporting it. That's why Firefox uses 600M of RAM... lots of "special cases".
jrockway
+1  A: 

Either will work just fine. Assuming you are asking for evangelical reasons, I prefer <br/>

slf
For diabolical reasons, I prefer <br />
Tor Valamo
+4  A: 

Both are correct, and both will be accepted by web browsers. You may as well save yourself the extra character, and use <br/>

LBushkin
saving one extra character is good=)
weng
+14  A: 

There is no right way in XHTML. They are formally identical in XML. Whitespace is not significant in that location.

bmargulies
+1. You could even put a line break in there if so inclined.
Thilo
There's no difference in XHTML, but there is in plain HTML - the `/` actually ends the tag, so your `<br/>` would display as break + `>`. The convention ` />` was adopted as a compromise
K Prime
You know, I temporarily lost track of the 'html' aspect, in spite of my comment. Of course in old enough HTML the /> form won't work.
bmargulies
@K Prime - the space doesn't help with that problem. It is only browsers getting that bit of HTML wrong that allows HTML-compatible XHTML to work.
David Dorward
+38  A: 

w3c specifies this as the grammar:

EmptyElemTag       ::=      '<' Name (S Attribute)* S? '/>'

That means open bracket, a name, a number of (space and attribute) tokens, an optional space, a slash, and an end tag. According to this, both are correct.

Matt
+1 to reference the grammar
Paulo Santos
Really only 0 or 1 spaces at the end? Perhaps S stands for any amount of whitespace?
bmargulies
+3  A: 

Both are correct. But I would use <br /> just to keep my code consistent... because I would never write

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"/>

instead of

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />

just to save a byte... and the second version is imho better readable. But that's just a matter of taste. Do it as you like, but do it consistent :-)

Mef
+15  A: 

Some older browsers didn't parse the element correctly without the space, so most web developers use <br />. I don't remember which browsers offhand, but I believe they're just about extinct.

EDIT: The browser was Netscape 4.

SLaks
+1 calming the riots
Kevin Conner
+1  A: 

Read the HTML compatibility guidelines of w3 of XHTML

Gaby
+3  A: 

Both <br/> and <br /> are correct. The reason that <br /> came about in the first place was to support older browsers that didn't understand the new <br/> syntax. It's really kind of a hack where the / is interpreted as an attribute with no value and ignored.

Asaph
A: 

How about you run a validator for both XHTML and CSS (http://validator.w3.org/) and realise that the problem of a space in <br /> node is way down on your priority list?

Igor Zevaka
+6  A: 

For XHTML: both of them. For HTML4 and earlier: neither.

Jörg W Mittag
+1 too bad that the only correct answer has only one upvote
Fabian Jakobs
A: 

Both are correct.

Cesar Lopez
A: 

<br>. You aren't using XML anyway.

Ms2ger