saving bandwitdh?

[Marcus Carr]

Kay Michael wrote:

> Some of the argument against abbreviated end tags is psychological: SGML
> allowed too many such options, and it caused parsers to become bloated and
> incompatible. So the SGML oldies have an inbuilt distaste for them.

Not this one - I still use SGML parsers specifically because they do make it easier to mark up
data by inserting the minimum number of tags. Anyone involved with loosly structured legacy
data would be better off using SGML than XML for the initial conversion (in my opinion) as you
can often save putting in 70-80 % of the tags. It may be an expensive feature from the
perspective of a parser writer, but it's very handy if you're a user.


--
Regards,

Marcus Carr                      email:  mrc at allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia)      www:    http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
       - Einstein



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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)