(no subject)

Michael Alaly (alaly@inlink.com)
Wed, 13 May 1998 07:27:01 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0234_01BD7E40.85308C40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am new to the list, but I have followed the short tag discussion for =
about a week now. I am in agreement with those who believe it is not =
necessary. To respond to Paul's argument about 'optional' XML standards, =
I will quote the W3C's XML recommendation (uh oh!)=20

"4. It shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents.
5. The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute =
minimum, ideally zero."

Page 4.

I believe that human readability and ease of use is more important than =
saving the few K that short tags could offer (in some cases more). XML =
should be as standardized as possible and as readable as possible. =
Optional short tags would undermine both of those characteristics which =
make XML the future.

My two cents,

Michael Alaly
alaly@inlink.com

Paul Prescod =20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------

I think that even more important than this argument is that nobody is
proposing mandatory short end tags. XML with optional short end tags
offers the advantages of languages with uniform, short end markers but
also allows you to "be redundant" where that will help. I've proposed in
the past that full SGML should take optional redundancy farther to allow
something like this:

<DIV ID=3DINTRO>
<DIV ID=3DWHY>
....
</DIV ID=3DWHY>
</DIV ID=3DINTRO>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------------------------------------------

------=_NextPart_000_0234_01BD7E40.85308C40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

I am new to the list, but I have = followed the=20 short tag discussion for about a week now. I am in agreement with those = who=20 believe it is not necessary. To respond to Paul's argument about = 'optional' XML=20 standards, I will quote the W3C's XML recommendation (uh oh!) =
 
 
"4. It shall be easy to write programs which = process XML=20 documents.
 5. The number of optional features in XML is = to be kept=20 to the absolute minimum, ideally zero."
 
Page 4.
 
I believe that human readability and = ease of use=20 is more important than saving the few K that short tags could offer (in = some=20 cases more). XML should be as standardized as possible and as readable = as=20 possible. Optional short tags would undermine both of those = characteristics=20 which make XML the future.
 
My two cents,
 
Michael Alaly
alaly@inlink.com
 
 
 
Paul Prescod 
----------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------
 
I think that even more important than this argument is that nobody=20 is
proposing mandatory short end tags. XML with optional short end=20 tags
offers the advantages of languages with uniform, short end = markers=20 but
also allows you to "be redundant" where that will help. = I've=20 proposed in
the past that full SGML should take optional redundancy = farther=20 to allow
something like this:

<DIV = ID=3DINTRO>
  =20 <DIV ID=3DWHY>
   ....
   </DIV=20 ID=3DWHY>
</DIV ID=3DINTRO>
 
----------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------
 
------=_NextPart_000_0234_01BD7E40.85308C40-- xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)