[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: short-tag considered unhealthy
-
To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
-
Subject: Re: short-tag considered unhealthy
-
From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
-
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 10:23:35 CDT
-
From w3c-sgml-wg-request@www10.w3.org Fri Sep 13 11: 32:02 1996
-
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 13 Sep 1996 07:56:39 +0100 from Martin Bryan
-
Organization: ACH/ACL/ALLC Text Encoding Initiative
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 07:56:39 +0100 Martin Bryan said:
>Just to make it clear to everyone the consequences of what you are
>saying, you will be forcing me to enter <OL compact="compact"> rather
>than <OL compact>. (Note that <OL "compact"> is invalid SGML!)
Yes.
Since the main application area of XML is expected to be program to
program communication, losing <OL compact> does not seem to me to be a
big problem. Even if users do want or need to type XML documents in
ASCII editors, I think it's better this way.
The posts on HTML discussion groups in which users try to explain to
each other the meaning of constructs like <OL compact> have convinced
me, at least, that requiring all attribute value specifications to take
the form attribute-name, value-indicator, quoted-string would result in
much less confusion and would be a net gain for everyone concerned.
-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Follow-Ups: