• From: "Joshua E. Smith" <jesmith@k...>
• To: "XML Developers' List" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:45:41 -0500

Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake, but I suddenly realized that if SML
omits attributes, there's not likely to be a need for empty elements.

(Scan your favorite XML sources and see how often there are empty elements
with *no* attributes.)

Dunno if that makes much difference in the parser, or even in user
understandability (having both <Foo></Foo> and <Foo /> available might
offend Occam), but it's interesting how one simplification can naturally
lead to another...


-Joshua Smith


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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: A call for reason
• Next by Date: SML - a vote against
• Previous by thread: XML for printing?
• Next by thread: re: [SML] Without attrs, you don't need empty elements...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread