[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:28:21 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Chris Lovett wrote:
> This is totally optional and experimental. The only rational is that for
> large documents or documents with long tag names, this saves a lot of bytes.
Sorry, this rationale (among others) was discussed to death in Sept 96 on
the old XML-WG list and found inadequate. Please review the archives
(<URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/index.html>) for
anything we might have missed. The good arguments for empty end-tags have
nothing to do with byte economy, but they involve other design issues that
impinge in a non-trivial way on SGML's minimization rules -- the upshot is
that empty end-tags as an *isolated* option (i.e. just an option per se)
is a very bad idea for XML. I say this even though I was one of those
arguing for empty end-tags back then.
Please reconsider.
Arjun
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
