[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: B.10 Empty elements?



Charles F. Goldfarb wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 12 Oct 96 15:09:33 CDT, Michael Sperberg-McQueen
> <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU> wrote:
> 
> >On 16 October 1996, the ERB will vote to decide the following question.
> >A straw poll indicates the question needs further discussion in the work
> >group.
> >
> >B.10 What form should EMPTY elements take, if there are EMPTY elements
> >in XML:  <e>, <e/, or <e></e> (where '/' is assumed the NET string)
> >(7.3, 11.2.3)?
> >
> 
> <e></e>
> 
> because:
> 1. It represents what appears in the ESIS.
> 2. It makes it obvious to the reader that the element is empty and that it has
> ended.
> 3. It is the same treatment for all elements -- another contributor to
> simplicity.

I disagree.  To me, particularly when editing manually, this looks like
an insertion point for text or other efforts.  I don't have any 
problems spotting an *attribute container* unless it is end tagged.
If minimization is not allowed where content is possible, and any tag
without content is defacto, empty, then why should I need the </e>?
Although it is an application convention, formatting braced information 
is sufficient to see the structure of an instance. Yes, they walk off 
the right side of a page, but when I see the container tag, it is
obvious what it it.  So obviousness is not necessarily the case.
I agree, it is the same treatment for all elements, but IMO, it adds to 
the reader confusion.

Small point, and not worth big debate.

len


References: