- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:01:29 -0700
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
A survey of the options: <e></e> - easy to understand. But of course then we can't retain the EMPTY 8879 declaration in XML, thus making XML<->SGML round-tripping difficult. Also I agree that it looks like a place where data ought to be put. Also, I think that XML ought to be able to deal with the following common formulation: <IMG SRC="x.gif">; call this HTML interoperability. <@e> and <e/ - Both of these are easy to understand, allow reasonable SGML interoperability, but make HTML interoperability impossible. <e> - requires annoying extra markup declarations. On the other hand, allows full SGML and HTML interoperability. Also, it is A Good Thing to make people start thinking about markup declarations. I think that SGML and HTML interoperability are worth a whole lot of elegance and cleverness. So it's <e> for me. Cheers, Tim Bray tbray@textuality.com http://www.textuality.com/ +1-604-488-1167
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 13:02:05 UTC