[Ur] Several patches and questions

[Adam Chlipala]

On 12/31/2012 08:59 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> Excerpts from Adam Chlipala's message of Mon Dec 31 21:51:43 +0800 2012:
>    
>> Ruling out children of tags that shouldn't have children is one thing
>> which might be worth addressing, but is that the only reason to support
>> registration of new singletons?  I mostly view the singletons list as
>> for compatibility with browsers that don't think in terms of XML, so
>> that it shouldn't be growing now that all the browsers are ready for
>> XHTML.  New tags will get proper XHTML support to begin with.
>>
>> We could save a few characters here and there on pages by using</>
>> instead of<></>.  Is there a more compelling reason than that to make a
>> change to Ur/Web?
>>      
> Aha, it looks like I misremembered the XHTML spec;<></>  is permitted but
> dis-recommended for BC reasons.  In that case, probably rounding out the rest
> of the empty tags (base, meta, param, area, col--meta is the most important
> thing) and not bothering with the empty syntax may be right.
>    

OK, I've added those tags.

By the way, allowing unrestricted use of the <meta> tag is poking a big 
hole in the nice guarantees that Ur/Web gives, so I'd think twice before 
exposing such with the FFI. ;)