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

RE: SD1 - Short End Tags

From: Jean Paoli <jeanpa@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 16:34:03 -0700
Message-ID: <78DFE33066ABD0118B9200805FD431BA5EC14E@RED-16-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I want to point here that the proposal for empty end-tags 
is the result of the discussions Andrew and myself had
with the W3C people that we met in April. The purpose
of all these postings is precisely to start the discussion.

-Jean

> ----------
> From: 	Arjun Ray[SMTP:aray@q2.net]
> Sent: 	Friday, May 16, 1997 1:09 PM
> To: 	w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 	Re: SD1 - Short End Tags 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 May 1997, Dave Hollander wrote:
> 
> > I am shocked; there have been no postings about this proposal. 
> 
> 8 months ago, I was one of the few who argued for empty end-tags. The
> ERB
> decided otherwise. 
> 
> AIUI, the decision was cast as an exclusive choice, in the interest of
> avoiding option alternatives. So, basically it was empty end-tags
> either
> everywhere, period, or nowhere, period.
> 
> Parenthetically, back then an argument that seemed to carry some
> weight
> was that relatively casual greppers (e.g. ad hoc perl scripts) would
> benefit from GIs in endtags.  
> 
> > I really like it if those building parsers have no problems with it.
> 
> I can't imagine it would pose a problem. In fact, problems are likely
> to
> come from unexpected GIs in endtags (a class of "error" in WF actually
> created by the -lang spec!)
> 
> But I agree, the lack of posts on this proposal (even to heap scorn on
> it:-)) is somewhat surprising.
> 
> 
> Arjun
>  
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 16 May 1997 19:34:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC