- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 19:39:32 -0400
- To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 7:04 PM 10/20/96, Arjun Ray wrote: >Not necessarily, or rather, this is *not* an argument for OMITTAG. It's >actually a new kind of minimization (isn't SHORTTAG up for review >anyway?:-)), i.e. a named endtag is shorthand for all, er, contextually >required endtags and "expands" to the necessary number of anonymous endtags. >With this rule, error recovery doesn't apply at all! We old lisp hackers knew these as "super-parens". They never caught on, though. I don't feel strongly about this, though you have some good points. The major problem with empty end-tags is that they change people's habits from HTML, which is not a big win. It also makes implementing Emacs modes slightly less simple, I think. I must say that after experience with SGML minimization, even this small convenience makes me nervous. Given the nerves and the difference from existing practice, I have to throw in a _no_ vote on empty end tags. Anyway tag salad can be very satisfying if the chef is good! -- David RE delenda est. I am not a number. I am an undefined character. _________________________________________ 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 Sunday, 20 October 1996 19:34:59 UTC