W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > March 1997

Re: Couldn't XML allow and ignore omitted tag minimization

From: Eve Maler <eve@doctools.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 16:21:39 -0500
Message-Id: <199703022121.QAA05562@village.doctools.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
cc: elm@arbortext.com
At the time we first discussed this, I also argued for allowing
OMITTAG specifications in element declarations.  If we're going to
revisit this issue, I support Paul in this.  (If we're not going
to revisit this issue, you can stop reading now. :-)

For me, the reasoning goes like this:

- SGML declarations are a characteristic of documents, not DTDs.
- OMITTAG NO allows OMITTAG specifications in elem decls, so that
  a DTD written with tag omission in mind can still be used with
  a document that doesn't allow tag omission.
- XML documents, by definition, don't allow tag omission, but can
  use a wide variety of DTDs.
- This is the only area where the syntax of an XML markup declaration
  is related in any way to a particular SGML declaration setting.
- All this makes me believe we should follow 8879's lead in allowing 
  the specification when our intent is OMITTAG NO.


> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 97 17:36:53 CST
> From: paul@arbortext.com (Paul Grosso)
> Message-Id: <9702282336.AA12560@atiaus.arbortext.com>
> To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Couldn't XML allow and ignore omitted tag minimization
> Since OMITTAG will always be NO, all I'm asking is that we define
> the XML grammar so that an optional omitted tag minimization field
> in an element declaration would be allowed but be ignored by an
> XML processor.
Received on Sunday, 2 March 1997 16:21:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:22 UTC