• From: Jon.Bosak@e... (Jon Bosak)
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:53:00 -0800

[Chris Lovett:]

| This is totally optional and experimental.  The only rational is that
| for large documents or documents with long tag names, this saves a lot
| of bytes.

Tests have shown that this difference disappears under compression.

| Think of it as a kind of compression technique that would
| only be enabled when both ends of the pipe can handle it.

Empty end tags are a well formedness error, and the behavior of a
conforming XML processor upon encountering such an error is to stop
parsing.

The prohibition on empty end tags was adopted specifically to enable
users to perform a large class of maintenance operations on XML
documents without having to buy commercial software.  I'm having a
very difficult time seeing this as anything but a blatant attempt to
subvert the standard by implementing a nonstandard feature in a widely
disseminated parser.  Please help me to understand this differently.

Jon


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: </> as end tag
    • From: Chris Lovett <clovett@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: MSXML comments
• Next by Date: RE: </> as end tag
• Previous by thread: RE: </> as end tag
• Next by thread: Unescaped '&'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread