Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Bryan Gilbert <Bryan_Gilbert@pml.com>
- To: "'XML-DEV'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:53:35 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Eliot Kimber [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 1:41 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: A little wish for short end tags (Was: RE: SDD
> At 10:38 PM 5/8/98 +0200, Jarle Stabell wrote:
> >I would love to see empty end tags making it into the standard in the
> >future. In many cases, one only marks up single words, and then empty
> >tags would justify having longer and more descriptive GI's, when
> forced to
> >write both start and end tags fully, one may be too tempted to use
> >"cryptic"/abbreviated GI's.
> If you're going to ask for empty end tags for this, then why not go
> all the
> way and reinstate NET-enabled start tags?
> <Para>asd asdfasd <A.word.that.I.want.to.mark/theword/ and this is not
> Markup minimization is a slippery slope--in for a penny, in for a
[BG] Why is it a slippery slope? Why go all the way and do
these NET-enabled things. (They look gross.)
My interest is supporting XML on embedded platforms where
ROM, RAM, CPU, are all very limited. XML combined
with XSL will be much better than HTML documents for this
application but lecc verbosity would be good too.
For those who need cryptic tags see the example DTDs that
John Tigue (DataChannel) developed for the WebBRoker project.
He presents a verbose DTD and then a terse version. Both
use preliminary XML namespaces to scope the elements.
The namespace helps document the terse version as
does the comments in the DTD.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)