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

[Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>]

juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> Well, nothing of this really justify do not leaving closing </>s as
> *optional*. If it was to generate so many problems as claimed then nobody
> would use them instead the full end tags, somewhat like the SVG DTD is
> being not used. However, forcing the full end tag in the XML spec has a
> well defined effect, _obligating_ to people to develop alternatives: e.g.
> ConciseXML.
>   
I think Juan needs to look at goal # 10 for XML "Terseness is of minimal 
importance"
and also the goal that there should be as few optional features as possible.

SGML still exists (and is widely used in some traditional sectors 
(despite the hype)) and
he can use that to get </>. XML was not created to be a perfect language 
that would suit everyone.  It was designed to be SGML deliverable over 
the web. Of course if you have different goals you will generate a 
different language.

Any idiot can make up a better markup language than XML, and many idiots 
in fact do so.
But its value comes from its being a standard.
> An posible appeal to the complexity of parser because of two types of end
> tags may be not a real issue since also the LMNL language presented at
> Extreme 2002 leaves the full end tag *optional* in annotations,
>   
Juan is correct that allowing </> has little effect on the complexity of 
a parser, just as
allowing comments, PIs, CDATA, different literal delimiters, numeric 
character references,
the built-in character references, and empty tags don't require much to 
support. Compared to the complexity of supporting DTDs, entities, 
multiple character sets. But what about
short-tags on start tags, attribute name omission, and tag-ommission? A 
line has to be drawn somewhere, and the argument against </> isnt 
complexity but readability. The fact that LMNL supports something says 
exactly nothing about what XML should support.

As an example of an XML-size language that relaxes a lot of XML's rules 
and accepts more of SGML, see  ECS (Editor's Concrete Syntax) which is 
what Topologi's markup editor uses for SGML  editing.
  http://www.topologi.com/resources/pdfs/ECS.pdf

It accepts </> as well, and can be quite easily converted to XML. I am 
sure other people have similar little languages (though perhaps not 
grounded properly in the standard like ECS is.)

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe