Re: B.10 Empty elements?

>I agree.  I admit I still like <@this> best, but <this/> would work as well.
>As would <this!> I suppose, which hass a nice imperative feel to it...

The difference between these two is that the use of @ is simply applying an 
application convention to naming of elements while the / implies a new type
of delimiter to complement TAGC, or a remapping of NET which requires NET to
have a different behaviour in SGML and XML. In SGML NETs always occur in
pairs. You cannot have <emp/ without another / to mark the end of the
element. This is not what is being proposed by anyone suggesting that />
should become the NET delimiter.

>Any of <@emp>, <emp>/, <emp/>, <emp!> require at the very least a
>change to the SGML declaration, but as we've already increased NAMELEN
>that's probably OK. 

The <@emp> solution does not need to change the delimiter set or the
behaviour of any existing tools other than an extension to the default name
character set. To me this means that it represents the smallest amount of
work for existing tool changes, and the seems to provide something our
mythical CS grad can cope withe easily.

Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK 
Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029   WWW home page: http://www.u-net.com/~sgml/