W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: B.10 Empty elements?

From: <lee@sq.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 96 20:09:41 EDT
Message-Id: <9610150009.AA24053@sqrex.sq.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC