Re: ERB meeting, 30 October 1996
Just a quick comment:
> With regard to the specific proposal Dave Peterson mentions: while
> much taken with the symmetry of the example given, the ERB is
> concerned about the implications of requiring every start-tag in
> existing SGML documents to be modified. (It's bad enough requiring
> all the EMPTY-element tags to be modified!)
Actually there is no difference. The omnimark or perl script is no
harder or easier whether it works on empty elements or "full" ones.
It's not the SGML software and SGML users we have to worry about, as
long as there is a clear mapping. It's the non-SGML users, or the
SMGL [sic] users, with their (our) Dirty Perl Scripts.
It's slightly easier to match <@IMG ALT="</>"> in perl than to match
<IMG A1="/>" A2='/>'/> but not much so, for what little that's worth.
> So while we are happy
> to contemplate the prospect of the SGML revision distinguishing six
> delimiter roles instead of the current three, the ERB is more likely
> to content itself with a proposal which is consistent both with a
> six-delimiter version of SGML and with the existing SGML '86.
Both <e/> and <@e> are compatible with both of these, as you mentioned.