Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rob Lugt wrote: > >... > > 1) Allow </> as an abbreviation for any closing tag. After all > <xsl:template>...</xsl:template> is rather long-winded and the element name > in the closing tag is completely redundant. I believe the closing tag > syntax is probably a throw-back to SGML compatibility, but if XML 1.x > discards that baggage then I think this would be a good thing to do. Funny how SGML gets the blame for whatever people dislike about XML. Actually SGML worked exactly as you propose. </> was a legal SGML end-tag. It had other short-forms too. Here is a document that used (and described) just about all of them: http://www.nyct.net/~aray/sgml/short/shorttag.txt Actually, it was the creators of XML who decided not to keep any of them. You can get the full story from one of the "fathers of XML": http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/xml-dev-May-1998/0311.html As you know, your second complaint is also something that XML removed from SGML. Your final complaint is the only one inherited from SGML. Paul Prescod
|
