Why don't self-closing script elements work?

Question

What is the reason browsers do not correctly recognize:

Answer 1

That's because SCRIPT TAG is not a VOID ELEMENT.

In an HTML Document - VOID ELEMENTS do not need a "closing tag" at all!

In xhtml, everything is Generic, therefore they all need termination e.g. a "closing tag"; Including br, a simple line-break, as

or its shorthand
.

However, a Script Element is never a void or a parametric Element, because script tag before anything else, is a Browser Instruction, not a Data Description declaration.

Principally, a Semantic Termination Instruction e.g., a "closing tag" is only needed for processing instructions who's semantics cannot be terminated by a succeeding tag. For instance:

semantics cannot be terminated by a following

because it doesn't carry enough of its own semantics to override and therefore terminate the previous H1 instruction set. Although it will be able to break the stream into a new paragraph line, it is not "strong enough" to override the present font size & style line-height pouring down the stream, i.e leaking from H1 (because P doesn't have it).

This is how and why the "/" (termination) signalling has been invented.

A generic no-description termination Tag like < />, would have sufficed for any single fall off the encountered cascade, e.g.:

Title< /> but that's not always the case, because we also want to be capable of "nesting", multiple intermediary tagging of the Stream: split into torrents before wrapping / falling onto another cascade. As a consequence a generic terminator such as < /> would not be able to determine the target of a property to terminate. For example: bold bold-italic < /> italic normal. Would undoubtedly fail to get our intention right and would most probably interpret it as bold bold-itallic bold normal.

This is how the notion of a wrapper ie., container was born. (These notions are so similar that it is impossible to discern and sometimes the same element may have both.

is both wrapper and container at the same time. Whereas only a semantic wrapper). We'll need a plain, no semantics container. And of course the invention of a DIV Element came by.

The DIV element is actually a 2BR-Container. Of course the coming of CSS made the whole situation weirder than it would otherwise have been and caused a great confusion with many great consequences - indirectly!

Because with CSS you could easily override the native pre&after BR behavior of a newly invented DIV, it is often referred to, as a "do nothing container". Which is, naturally wrong! DIVs are block elements and will natively break the line of the stream both before and after the end signalling. Soon the WEB started suffering from page DIV-itis. Most of them still are.

The coming of CSS with its capability to fully override and completely redefine the native behavior of any HTML Tag, somehow managed to confuse and blur the whole meaning of HTML existence...

Suddenly all HTML tags appeared as if obsolete, they were defaced, stripped of all their original meaning, identity and purpose. Somehow you'd gain the impression that they're no longer needed. Saying: A single container-wrapper tag would suffice for all the data presentation. Just add the required attributes. Why not have meaningful tags instead; Invent tag names as you go and let the CSS bother with the rest.

This is how xhtml was born and of course the great blunt, paid so dearly by new comers and a distorted vision of what is what, and what's the damn purpose of it all. W3C went from World Wide Web to What Went Wrong, Comrades?!!

The purpose of HTML is to stream meaningful data to the human recipient.

To deliver Information.

The formal part is there to only assist the clarity of information delivery. xhtml doesn't give the slightest consideration to the information. - To it, the information is absolutely irrelevant.

The most important thing in the matter is to know and be able to understand that xhtml is not just a version of some extended HTML, xhtml is a completely different beast; grounds up; and therefore it is wise to keep them separate.