Re: B.10 Empty elements?
Bill Smith wrote:
> Len Bullard wrote:
> > 3. Is the processing time severe for the case you state?
> > I realize this question has many hands to argue with.
> While the average case time may not be "severe", the worst case behavior may be
> and therefor cannot be ignored.
> If an empty element is inserted high in a document instance (say an <A> within a
> high-level <DIV> in HTML 3.2), the emptiness of <A> cannot be inferred until the
> enclosing element is closed - or the parser performs lookahead. Either way,
> processing is delayed and application complexity increases.
> I might trade speed for complexity but I'd hate to lose speed while increasing
> complexity. Bad tradeoff.
Agreed that is a bad tradeoff. Forcing lookahead isn't good, and
maintaining a stack seems to be undesirable for the PERL hacker.
It appears though, that this is still a case where the absence
of the DTD bites, and perhaps the </e> is the best tradeoff.
Thanks for making it clear, Bill and Lee.
Get ready to answer this same question a few hundred times
a year. No matter how we explain it, the <e></e> looks redundant
for an EMPTY element and a lot of SGML hackers are taught not to
do it. It will be a tough habit to break because from the
author's perspective, not the parser programmer, it looks like
Oh well, my drummer is ugly but he has good meter.