Re: [xml-dev] Generic XML Tag Closer </> (GXTC)

[Rick Marshall <rjm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

One of things most engineers learn very early in their training is that 
the text book examples are just that - text book examples.

The real world has a way of interfering with theory - loose wires, 
components on the edge of their tolerances, inductance in wires etc. 
(civil and mechanical engineers must have their own list).

So...

When we talk about readability can we start using examples where the 
ratio of data to tag bytes is say 100:1 rather than 1:4 or worse.

Embed your tags in a single line that is 10k long or put your 
terminators in the middle of a line 20 lines from where the opening tag 
occurred and then discuss readability.

Because 20 or 30 bytes is irrelevant on all counts in this discussion - 
I don't care if I type 15 bytes or 20 bytes. I do care if I spend 2 
hours looking for a missing end tag.

Rick


Philippe Poulard wrote:
> Melvin Chin wrote:
>> May I seek some opinions on this topic/proposal?
>>
>> ===================================================================
>> To extend XML spec just a little to permit use of "</>" (GXTC)
>> to be placed wherever it is permitted in the current XML spec
>> to place a closing tag.  The semantics will be to effect a
>> closing of the nearest open tag before the position of GXTC.
>> ===================================================================
>>
>> Any opinion is fine, useful, crazy, nonsense, should be done,
>> must not coz it's going to break many things ...
>>
>> I could see some good use of it, but do note the deep potential
>> impact it may bring.  Would like to hear from you.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> cheers,
>> mc
>>
>
> my 1€ :
>
> <a>b<c>d<e>f</e></c></a>
> <a>b<c>d<e>f</></></>
> <a>b<c>d<e>f</3>
> a little more shorter !
> we could also reduce to <3> but it really looks like an open tag
> <a>b<c>d<e>f<3>
>