[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Joshua E. Smith" <jesmith@kaon.com>
- To: "XML Developers' List" <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:45:41 -0500
Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake, but I suddenly realized that if SML
omits attributes, there's not likely to be a need for empty elements.
(Scan your favorite XML sources and see how often there are empty elements
with *no* attributes.)
Dunno if that makes much difference in the parser, or even in user
understandability (having both <Foo></Foo> and <Foo /> available might
offend Occam), but it's interesting how one simplification can naturally
lead to another...
-Joshua Smith
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)
|
