- From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:59:54 -0700
- To: streich@slb.com
- CC: cbullard@HiWAAY.net, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
| At 09:35 AM 10/13/96 -0500, Len Bullard wrote: | >Jon Bosak wrote: | > | >[snip] | > | >> This may not | >> sound like much, but to a lot of people in the trenches, especially | >> people facing deadlines, it's all the difference in the world. I | >> suspect that the same is true for people who build cgi-bin scripts and | >> similar one-off lightweight processors. | >> | >> Jon | > | >I concur with Jon. Whatever space is saved by the empty end tag, it | >complicates the use of simple rewrite scripts and it makes it much | >harder | >to read the instance. Simpler scripts are important to making XML | >usable. | | If there are no technical reasons for excluding them, then I don't see | why we should. Whether or not an author chooses to use them is the | decision that the author will make dependent on the situation. I'd hate | to see us get into the business of protecting people from themselves. Not from themselves; from each other. A world in which I am guaranteed that any XML data from any source will have no empty end tags is a different world from one in which I have no such guarantee. Jon
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 03:05:11 UTC