[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
>...
> I ran into them every day in HTML work, especially in Dynamic HTML work,
> where it actually mattered. They didn't have </>, but they didn't close
> their elements because they didn't have to - oh, except for tables where
> the browser would freak. Amazing how long it took people to figure that
> one out.
I think it is worth pointing out that tag ommission and short-tagging
are light years away from each other in terms of language parsing theory
and practical implications. Most programming languages use
short-tagging. i.e.
if(foo){
}
Rather than:
{if(foo)}
{/if}
If there were huge problems with it, we would know by now. I agree that
using *only* short-tagging is not appropriate for hand-edited
documentation. But I would also say that using *only* long-tagging is
similarly inappropriate because the depth of tags can obscure the
content <aside>especially within a single paragraph</aside>.
Paul Prescod
|
