- From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 96 13:43:25 CDT
- To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 03:10:23 -0400 Martin Bryan said: >.. 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 Not so: an element declared using an Elephant's Child type declaration can certainly take this form in SGML. The rule would simply be that elements declared empty in an XML DTD would be declared, in the equivalent SGML DTD, using declarations of the form <!ELEMENT e - - (e?) -(e) > One may or may not like this solution, but let's discuss it using reasons that actually apply, not erroneous claims about what can and cannot be handled by SGML processors. -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 14:50:15 UTC