• To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Subject: Re: genx - consensus items
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:41:29 -0800
• Cc: "xml-dev mailing list" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <007901c3e0f7$7d81fa40$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k>
• References: <0806139A-4C8A-11D8-905C-000A95A51C9E@t...> <007901c3e0f7$7d81fa40$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k>

On Jan 22, 2004, at 6:53 AM, Karl Waclawek wrote:

> - the genxEndStartTag() call is not really necessary,
>   as it can be inferred from internal writer state

I'm inclined to agree.  A teeny bit more complexity in the 
implementation but probably worth it.  Anyone want to push back? -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: genx - consensus items
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • genx - consensus items
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: genx - consensus items
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: genx - genxEndTag
• Next by Date: Re: genx - genxEndTag
• Previous by thread: Re: genx - genxEndTag
• Next by thread: Re: genx - consensus items
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread