Yet another validity question

Liam R. E. Quin liamquin at
Sun Apr 25 06:08:05 BST 1999

On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Marcus Carr wrote:

> From: Marcus Carr <mrc at>
> John Cowan wrote:
> > Liam Quin wrote:
> > > One reason it is there is to allow "elephants", but exclusions were
> > > later removed from XML:
> > > in which HOLDER must now be empty but can have a missing end tag.
> >
> > I suppose you mean "can have an explicit end tag", no?  After all,
> > ordinary EMPTY elements don't have end tags.
> I suspect that Liam was using "empty" in the sense that it is an element
> that cannot contain other elements because its content model doesn't
> allow it to, rather than one that has the declared content of EMPTY.

That's correct.  In SGML (not XML) an EMPTY element cannot have an end tag.

If you are dealing with fully normalised data, it really helps if they
do have end tags -- the XML /> notation was devised for this purpose.


Liam Quin, GroveWare Inc., Toronto;  The barefoot agitator
l i a m q u i n     at    i n t e r l o g    dot   c o m
Unix/C/SGML/XML/Perl, will manage programmers for socks and food.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list