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

Re: B.10 Empty elements?



On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 03:10:23 -0400 Martin Bryan said:
>..  No matter how we explain it, the <e></e> looks redundant
>>for an EMPTY element
>
>and
>
>>If empty elements were marked syntactically, e.g.
>><@PGBRK>
>>then there would be no problem.
>
>The first solution cannot be used as input to a standard SGML tool,
>so would require a specialised XML tool to edit the document. The

Not so:  an element declared using an Elephant's Child type declaration
can certainly take this form in SGML.  The rule would simply be that
elements declared empty in an XML DTD would be declared, in the
equivalent SGML DTD, using declarations of the form

  <!ELEMENT e - - (e?)  -(e) >

One may or may not like this solution, but let's discuss it using
reasons that actually apply, not erroneous claims about what can and
cannot be handled by SGML processors.

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen