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

Re: B.10 Empty elements?

From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:58:42 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: lee@sq.com
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 22:38 14/10/96 EDT, lee@sq.com wrote:
>> Get ready to answer this same question a few hundred times 
>> a year.  No matter how we explain it, the <e></e> looks redundant 
>> for an EMPTY element and a lot of SGML hackers are taught not to 
>> do it.  It will be a tough habit to break because from the 
>> author's perspective, not the parser programmer, it looks like 
>> YetAnotherReasonSGMLIsUgly.
>Which is why I prefer something like
>both of which are either legal with RCS or can be made legal with a
>small change to the SGML declaration.

Another variation on this theme is to require empty elements to be written as


From the SGML point of view we would be making the NET delimiter "/>" and
requiring the start-tags of all empty elements to be net-enabling
start-tags.  In SGML '97 this could be a distinct delimiter.

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 10:04:13 UTC

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