Short closing HTML tags (the </> expanding)

Milo

Latte macros can be short-ended. I mean {/} instead of {/some}. Imho, it is more readable in some cases.

And time to time, I'm thinking about short-ended HTML tags. Latte would expand them.

<table>
	<tr>
		<td>Something</>
		<td>Something</>
		<td>Something</>
	</tr>
</table>

It would be without BC. The only cons I can see, is the IDE support and highlighters.

So, should I start to think about pull-request?

David Grudl

This seems even better and is va…wait-for-it…lid! :-)

<table>
	<tr>
		<td>Something
		<td>Something
		<td>Something
	</tr>
</table>

A lot of tags can be omitted:

</p> </li> </dt> </dd>
</td> </th> </tr>
<tbody> & </tbody> </thead> </tfoot>
</option> </optgroup> </caption>
<colgroup> & </colgroup>
<html> & </html>
<head> & </head>
<body> & </body>

And it IMHO covers the majority of use cases, where it would be appropriate to use </>.

Milo

Sure, sure :-) But, still it would be handy. E.g. easy to switch <div> to <p>.

<div>
	Very
	very
	very
	very
	very
	long
</>

Or inline is shorter:

Some <strong>important</> thing!

I'm thinking about it probably two years and I cannot recall more arguments for now. Time to time I hit it, and saying to myself: “That would be handy…”.

It's just idea.

David Grudl

I know that I replied to something little else. And I did not want to express that I am against. I am not.

Actually <strong>important</> is valid too, in HTML < 5 (see SHORTTAG YES and what it means).

(Btw, interesting is that <br/> in HTML 4 has special meaning which is very different from what is means in XHTML. So talks about compatibility between XHTML and HTML were never true.)

Jan Endel

That ending can be handy, if it uses for n:macros:

<div n:if="$user->isLoggedIn()">Log out!</>