Re: OMITTAG specifications in element declarations

<elm@arbortext.com> (Eve L. Maler) recently wrote:

>In XML, we've tossed out OMITTAG.  However, there's a question about 
>whether we allow the "omitted tag minimization" parameter in XML 
>element declarations.
>I feel we should, so that existing DTDs that provide these specifications
>don't need to be maintained in two separate versions, one for SGML and
>one for 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 
>XML spec.

I agree--no harm in allowing them.

However, note that 8879 _permits_ (but doesn't _require_) that that
parameter be omitted if the SGML declaration doesn't permit OMITTAG.

So, with care one could use the stripped DTD for XML and SGML under
some scenarios.  Although I can certainly imagine where one might
require an OMITTAG DTD as well, and in that case it would be convenient
to be able to have the omitted tag minimization parameter present and

Dave Peterson