Re: Recent ERB votes

On the general subject of empty elements, DTD info reprised in
<?XML ... ?> PIs, etc, I find myself in a state of serious

On the one hand, I REALLY care about SGML forward compatibility, so
I'd be REALLY sorry to lose vanilla <e> empty elements.  And I already
work with a normalised form very close to XML as the draft DID have
it, using a concise DTD reprise, so I could see converting my existing
code to handle XML plus DTD-reprise-in-PIs very easily.

On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the criticism of adhocery which
Arjun makes, and indeed made it myself in the debate over

I must say I agree with Eve Maler that grandfathering a specific LIST
of empty elements is reprehensible.  Note that wrt the 'can a
perl hacker do it in an afternoon' issue, this makes the
published decision virtually indistinguishable in difficulty from the
DTD-reprise-in-PIs approach---in either case a table of empty GIs has
to be maintained and checked.  I also agree with Paul that the
'possible inconsistencies' argument is vacuous.

On balance, then, I go with my original response on reading the draft,
namely "Oh good, a serviceable approach to compatibility", even if it
means using PIs IFF YOU WANT TO USE <e>.  Oh yes, one final note, wrt
Arjun's remarks about PIs: a parser IS an application, and there's
nothing bogus about shortstopping PIs flagged for the parser itself,
so the claimed necessity of having to round-trip the PIs out and back
again is invalid and not as such a basis for rejecting this approach.

I too therefore urge the board to return to the status quo ante wrt
<e> and <?XML empty names ... ?>