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

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

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 97 16:54:00 EST
Message-Id: <9703162154.AA24907@sqrex.sq.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Sorry if this has been decided -- I missed the mail when I was away.

Terry Allan wote:
> Docbook allows tag minimization in the DTD but sets OMITTAG NO in the
> sdecl.  [...]  But for those users who want to substitute their own
> sdecl with OMITTAG YES, we'd want to keep the tag minimization.

Note that you can do this, if you really must, with a parameter entity:
<!Entity % OO " O O">
<!Entity % XO " - O">
<!Entity % OX " O -">
<!Entity % XX " - -">

<!Element title %OX; (%title.model;)>


Since amost all DTDs written with the expectation of minimisation will
require changes before they work in XML, allowing this syntax is at best
misleading.

> For that matter, HTML may have replaced Rainbow as a descriptive
> hub DTD; if the HTML DTD can be XML-compliant as is, that would
> be very useful.

The syntax of EMPTY elements, the way that quotes are required around
attribute values in XML, the way that you can't say <IMG BORDER> but
must say <IMG border="BORDER">, the inclusions used in the FORM model,
the & used in the HEAD model, these are just a few things off the top
of my head.  These are the sorts of things that XML was designed to
obviate.  If we give up on simlifying the language, we can all go
back to using Panorama over the Interenet and give up now, and lose
a golden opportunity.


Adding - - to elements won't even _begin_ to let you use HTML.
And even if you did, XML still requires OMITTAG NO.  Several people
have wanted us to improve the syntax of HTML without actually changing
any existing HTML, and this makes no sense to me, sorry.

Lee
Received on Sunday, 16 March 1997 22:07:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:15 EDT