- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 22:52:55 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I think empty elements are needed, and that the <empty></empty> syntax is unnacceptable. I think we should ignore the BUGs in ESIS that reflect the view that empty elements are useful containers that _cannot contain anything_. Empty elements are useful for _point_ phenomena in a text. They identify a position in the text and attach properties to it (a good example being TEI milestones). This is an important kind of thing to describe, and is accordingly common. I think that in this case we can diverge to one of the NET syntaxes (I like <point-tag/> myself). We are already going to have to explain that without a fixed DTD (like HTML has) we need end tags; given that we are already violating people's HTML expectations for an explainable reason, we can use the same grounds to justify self-revealing "EMPTY" tags. I tend to agree with the opinion of some that a partial DTD gets us into a hard place: now we don't just have maybe a DTD, maybe not a DTD, but perhaps an incomplete DTD. Conformance will be too hard to specify, and people will be confused. Since the NET solutions are at least nominally SGML (if uncommon SGML that most editors cannot generate), they even pass the hard SGML compatibility test we have saddled ourselves with. -- David RE delenda est. _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________ http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/services_map_main.html
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 22:48:25 UTC