Re: OMITTAG specifications in element declarations
At 1:41 PM 11/2/96, Eve L. Maler wrote:
>In XML, we've tossed out OMITTAG. However, there's a question about
>whether we allow the "omitted tag minimization" parameter in XML
> I see no harm in allowing them. In private conversation,
>Tim has said that we shouldn't, because it requires more cruft in the
I think the answer is pretty clear. Ask yourself the question of how we
will explain the need to put two hyphens in each element definition to an
XML user who doesn't care about SGML, but only wants the advantages of XML
(descriptive markup, document grammars, real containment). There's not a
plausible explanation. Worse, the explanation points to the removal of a
feature that seems like a better idea than it really is, making the naive
user feel deprived (as well as bossed around).
They typical XML user will only be an SGML user if we fail in our
mission in defining XML. Let's design on the assumption that we will
succeed and lots of people will use XML, who may or may not ever use SGML.
RE delenda est.
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________