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

Re: B.10 Empty elements?

From: Len Bullard <cbullard@HiWAAY.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 22:49:15 -0500
Message-ID: <326D95BB.3FDF@HiWAAY.net>
To: John_Lavagnino@brown.edu
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
John_Lavagnino@brown.edu wrote:
> |   B.10 What form should EMPTY elements take, if there are EMPTY elements
> |   in XML:  <e>, <e/, or <e></e> (where '/' is assumed the NET string)
> |   (7.3, 11.2.3)?
> Since this question remains open, as far as I can tell, let me just
> log another favorable response to the <e/> idea, which I think was
> originally advanced by James Clark.  It looks and feels more natural
> than <e/ by having the universal tag-ender >, while also containing
> the / which suggests end-ness to us all; it doesn't make the user feel
> irritated the way <long-tag-name></long-tag-name> is going to do; and
> by differentiating the EMPTY elements even without a DTD it tidily
> resolves the problem of knowing what's going to have an end-tag and
> what ain't.
> John Lavagnino

Of the solutions proposed, this one seems the tidiest.
It's disadvantage is it confuses the SGMLer and the HTMLer
but it is minor confusion.  <e></e> confuses them a bit 
let.  <e> confuses the parser and slows down the system.

Is that about it?


Received on Tuesday, 22 October 1996 23:48:57 UTC

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