[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SGML queries

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: SGML queries
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:01:11 -0700
• In-reply-to: <200209102016.QAA13253@m...>
• References: <200209102016.QAA13253@m...>

John Cowan wrote:

> 1) What is the correct jargon for an element which allows both start-tag and
> end-tag omission?  I have been calling them "phantom elements", since they
> may be ESIS-present but lexically absent.

I don't recall hearing a name for this; "phantom element"
sounds as good a name as any.  (I will note though, that
in my opinion start-tag omission is a Really Bad Idea).


> 2) I note that when SP has a choice between inferring a missing end-tag and
> inferring a missing start-tag  [...]

This can never happen: it will only infer start-tags
for contextually required elements, and if there is
a contextually required element it cannot infer an end-tag.


> (and phantom element), it infers the end-tag:
>
> <!DOCTYPE root [
>         <!ELEMENT root - - (foo, foo?)>
>         <!ELEMENT foo - O (#PCDATA | bar)*>
>         <!ELEMENT bar O O (foo)>
>         ]>
> <root> <foo> case 1 <foo> case 2 </root>
>
> does not generate an ESIS containing "bar", and even adding a "</bar>"
> before "</root>" does not help.  Is this behavior prescribed by the
> Standard?

Yes, this is the prescribed behaviour.  'bar' is not
contextually required at any point in 'foo's content model,
so it is not subject to start-tag inference.



--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • SGML queries
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SGML queries
• Next by Date: Re: Top 10 commercial XML vocabularies?
• Previous by thread: SGML queries
• Next by thread: RE: SGML queries
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread