A little wish for short end tags (Was: RE: SDD bogus)

[W. Eliot Kimber]

At 01:53 PM 5/8/98 -0700, Bryan Gilbert wrote:

>	[BG]  Why is it [minimization] a slippery slope? 

Because if you can make an argument for empty end tags, you can probably
make an argument for NET-enabled end tags, and minimized attribute
specifications, and omitted tags, and so on and so on.

Just because *your* requirements make it obvious that empty end tags are
enough, that doesn't mean that everybody's do.  Any decision short of no
minimization or full minimization will be an arbitrary one that will cause
those whose requirements are not met to wonder why.  There is always full
SGML, after all.

The only argument I could see for empty tags involves the fact that you
don't need explicit declarations in order to use it. But the same argument
applies to NET-enabled start tags, so that razor would't help here.

[NOTE: I'm using NET-enabled start tags as an example to make a point. I'm
really aggitating for their inclusion in XML--they're handy, but not that
much more handy than empty end tags, saving only one keystroke.]

Cheers,

E.


--
<Address HyTime=bibloc>
W. Eliot Kimber, Senior Consulting SGML Engineer
ISOGEN International Corp.
2200 N. Lamar St., Suite 230, Dallas, TX 95202.  214.953.0004
www.isogen.com
</Address>

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)