Re: B.10 Empty elements?

>Indeed. The SGML compatibility rule [*] is the real problem, in that
>the (core) concrete syntax (actually, even the abstract syntax) is
>*lexically* inadequate. The issue has always been one of
>tokenization. The denotation of an empty element is indistinguishable
>from the start tag of an element with content: in SGML systems the
>DTD has always been present to resolve  the ambiguity on what from a
>lexical point of view are essentially "semantic" grounds. Without a
>DTD, the alternatives are restricted to either disallowing empty
>elements altogether or disambiguating them *lexically*. 

Yes. This is the conflusion of syntax and semantics that I refer to:
SGML has too many things in the parser that are really interpreted
based on a semantic decision.