Nitpick, but that is required. The heuristic that places it for you is meant as an aide if you accidentally forget to add it. And it's not always right.

Linters will also flag your code when you don't include semicolons.

As for <br> vs. <br/>. I personally prefer <br/> because of consistency. Just like I'd write <img .. />, <link .. /> and so on.

And the one tag that has to be closed with no content: <script type=".." src=".."></script> can't be self closed anyway.

Self closing tags have no place in HTML.

False. For void elements (like <br> <img>, etc) the "/" has no effect and is simply an accepted style that is fully supported by the spec.

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/syntax.html#syntax-...

The idea that a different writing style in a programming is somehow invalid is nonsensical.

Also, have fun working with things like JSF and writing HTML5 without those self-closing tags.

A style guide, of course, could ban using IMAGE as the name of the IMG element or any other infelicity, whether it is legal or merely tolerated.

I remember that jumped out at me when I read the HTML5 parsing spec, and I had no success whatsoever finding more information about it (try Googling "<image>"); do you have any links on how it came into existence? Or even better, a site that actually does this?

    <dt>A start tag whose tag name is "image"</dt>
    <dd>
     <!-- As of 2005-12, studies showed that around 0.2% of pages used the <image> element. -->
     <p><a href="#parse-error">Parse error</a>. Change the token's tag name to "img" and reprocess it. (Don't
    ask.)</p>
   </dd>

...in your opinion. In my opinion, you're wrong. Closed tags and valueless attributes have no place in HTML. Your example for the script tag actually follows the XHTML standard which states that elements whose content model is not EMPTY do not use the minimized form. However, if enough people really have a big enough problem with this, I think we should change the standard to allow self closing script tags. (And apparently they already work in Chrome and some other browsers.)

Given that there are clearly a number of people whose opinion differs from yours and the fact that HTML is an open standard...I think the current compromise as stated in the HTML5 standard (optional self closing tags) should be acceptable to any reasonable person.

(edit: Also, don't ever use React from Facebook if you don't like self closing tags because (since they had to write a parser) they require all tags to be closed or self closed. Consistent, unambiguous formatting is just that much easier to parse.)

PS: I too am from the XHTML era :)

If all I have is the HTML source code to go by, then yes, that's one of the things.

If I see useless self-closing tags then that starts them at a lower caliber of programmer, and the rest of the code better be really good to raise them back up.

This is because I assume that if they are closing the tags they never bothered to learn html properly, and are just copying online tutorials. Sure, not are all like that, but in absence of other information, I have to use what's in front of me.

> PS: I too am from the XHTML era :)

It's time to stop. People who learned Javascript 20 years ago also had to eventually learn to stop wrapping the scripts in HTML comments. Things change.

You know what, to me, is a telltale sign that someone isn't as good as they think they are? They make snap judgements about a person based upon perceived code quality. That tells me that you're in that dangerous "advanced beginner who thinks s/he knows everything" stage.

I said they (semi-colons, white space) were not required, but had a useful purpose (i.e. you should use them). Unlike self closing tags which are not required, but additionally serve no purpose whatsoever (i.e. why are you using them?)

I'm not judging a person, I'm judging their ability to program. If you use a feature that does nothing at all it tells me you don't understand the item at hand, you are just copying from other places. Or that you have not updated your knowledge from when those things had a purpose.

Either one of those is not a sign of a good programmer.

Yes I've encountered your type before. I take great delight in watching you fail. What you're saying is completely arbitrary, yet you hold the opinion dearly. That's the thing when you're a dick, people don't help you, and they love to see you fail. Life IS easier if you're kind to others.

The inference one draws from this is that one should not take delight in watching others fail.