[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto au
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > >... > I ran into them every day in HTML work, especially in Dynamic HTML work, > where it actually mattered. They didn't have </>, but they didn't close > their elements because they didn't have to - oh, except for tables where > the browser would freak. Amazing how long it took people to figure that > one out. I think it is worth pointing out that tag ommission and short-tagging are light years away from each other in terms of language parsing theory and practical implications. Most programming languages use short-tagging. i.e. if(foo){ } Rather than: {if(foo)} {/if} If there were huge problems with it, we would know by now. I agree that using *only* short-tagging is not appropriate for hand-edited documentation. But I would also say that using *only* long-tagging is similarly inappropriate because the depth of tags can obscure the content <aside>especially within a single paragraph</aside>. Paul Prescod
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|