Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...> wrote: | This syntax [endtag omission] is pretty much what the XML, HTML and | SGML modes on most coloring editors use, and it has been given an name | as part of ISO 8879: "amply-tagged" rather than "well-formed". Actually, the WebSGML TC uses "fully-tagged" rather than "well-formed", avoiding moralizing or persuasive connotations. Endtag omission has always been a useful feature, IMHO. Back in 96 when the First Draft was being developed, I was willing to live without it if I could have empty endtags. (I still think GI-in-endtag is a misfeature.) Interestingly enough, I learned recently that omissibility was one of the reasons to design two separate tags in the first place, rather than a syntax with element boundary delimiters (say '<' and '>') and a separator (say '|') between the the attribute specifications and the content. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3239423919385905@n... <p|That would be something <img alt="New!" src="new.gif">, wouldn't it?>
|
