- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 07:43:22 +0100
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
.. No matter how we explain it, the <e></e> looks redundant >for an EMPTY element and >If empty elements were marked syntactically, e.g. ><@PGBRK> >then there would be no problem. The first solution cannot be used as input to a standard SGML tool, so would require a specialised XML tool to edit the document. The second solution could be handled by any SGML tool that allowed extension to the name characacter definition. I would argue that this provides a strong case for selecting the second solution. ---- Martin Bryan, The SGML Centre, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 WWW home page: http://www.u-net.com/~sgml/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 03:09:43 UTC