- From: <lee@sq.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 96 20:09:41 EDT
- To: cbullard@HiWAAY.net
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
> If minimization is not allowed where content is possible, and any tag > without content is defacto, empty, then why should I need the </e>? Consider <Chapter><title>this is a 200-page chapter, sorry</title> <PGBRK> <P> ..... We can't process the PGBRK and the other elements inside Chapter until we've seen </Chapter>, and hence have deduced that there is no </PGBRK> -- otherwise we'd think all the <P> elements were within PGBRK. Of course, it could simply have been a user error... If empty elements were marked syntactically, e.g. <@PGBRK> then there would be no problem. This can be done by allowind @ as a name start character, and then saying that in XML, empty elements have names starting with @. If SGML could be augmented to allow a different open tag delimiter for EMPTY elements, it could use <@, and the entire problem would vanish. Lee
Received on Monday, 14 October 1996 20:10:00 UTC