"Rick Jelliffe" <> 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/[email protected]
<p|That would be something <img alt="New!" src="new.gif">, wouldn't it?>
