[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10:24 PM 6/23/2002 +0100, Rob Lugt wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent wrote
> >
> > I'll admit to getting fed up with typing end-tags on occasion. However, I
> > find typing it far simpler than trying to sort out the meaning of:
> > </></></>
> > Figuring out where the end tags belong can still become a non-trivial
> > problem quite rapidly.
>
>True, but my suggestion does not prevent you using the name in the closing
>tag when it is useful. Also, I imagine you normally use some kind of
>indentation to make the suggested case a little easier to read.
I rarely use indentation (it's as much or more effort than angle brackets),
and I don't believe in "this feature does not prevent you from doing the
right thing" kinds of features. I'd fight very hard to keep XML's current
approach. In fact, at this point, I'd fight hard to make XML even more of
a pain in the neck because of the problems "convenience features" inflict
on interoperability.
> > If you want that short form, or any of the other short forms you list, I'd
> > strongly recommend writing some simple code that converts from the short
> > form to the more verbose XML 1.0.
>
>Sure, I was thinking of adding these extensions (perhaps they should be
>called contractions) as an option to ElCel's xmlcanon [1]. Would anybody
>find this useful?
As long as it's a separate part and not built right into the parser, it
sounds good to me.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
