- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:14:48 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 11:08 AM 10/23/96, Tim Bray wrote: >18 months ago, I would have agreed. Now, there are many millions of >people who have got used to <IMG> and <BR> and <HR> and so on. > >Technically, I *prefer* <e/>. But I'm going to vote for SGML/HTML >interoperability. HTML compatibility is a very good argument. (close to knock-down, drag-out, to me). What I don't like is that the <e> format requires a DTD for XML processing (or partial DTD, which seems confusing to me), and <e/> does not. I think the foreign syntax is easy to justify given the elimination of the need for any DTD information. Easier than the explanation that you have to declare "just one little thing" if you don't have a DTD, but do use empty elements. Your mileage may vary. -- 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 Wednesday, 23 October 1996 15:10:08 UTC