• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:37:01 -0800

>From the XML spec, section 3.1:

"Empty-element tags may be used for any element which has no content,
whether or not it is declared using the keyword EMPTY. For
interoperability, the empty-element tag must be used, and can only be
used, for elements which are declared EMPTY."

1. The "can only be used" part of the second sentence seems to
contradict the the first sentence.

2. "the empty-element tag must be used...for elements which are declared
EMPTY" seems to contradict the assertiona that <NAME></NAME> and <NAME/>
are the same thing.

Is there any way out of this conundrum?

--
Elliotte Rusty Harold

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
    • From: "Richard L. Goerwitz" <richard@g...>
  • Re: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
    • From: Chris Maden <crism@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ModSAX: Proposed Core Features
• Next by Date: unsubscribe xml-dev
• Previous by thread: Mod??SAX: Feature Matrix
• Next by thread: Re: empty tags and the XMl 1.0 spec
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread