Re: Agree: empty P, container PP [Was: Hot Metal and HTML ]

Murray Maloney <murray@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 14:16:36 EDT
Message-id: <9406151405.aa09822@dali.scocan.sco.COM>
Reply-To: html-ig@oclc.org
Originator: html-ig@oclc.org
Sender: html-ig@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Murray Maloney <murray@oclc.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-ig@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Agree: empty P, container PP [Was: Hot Metal and HTML ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group

> 
> In message <9406151304.aa09742@dali.scocan.sco.COM>, Murray Maloney writes:
> >
> >Second, I'd like to respond to the assertion that
> >"the SGML tag implication algorithm is not strong enough"
> >to deduce opening tags.  That's not quite accurate.
> >In fact, I have been toying with this all morning
> >and through my lunch hour.
> 
> >
> >Also, %flow; would have to be modified so that instead
> >of allowing (%text | %block ), it would allow ( P, (%block)*)
> >
> >Comments?
> 
> Short version: Been there. Done that. No workie.

I am amused by that answer and might have accepted it blindly.
But then you said...

> 
> Long version:
> 
> It conflicts with several of my test cases.  The trivial example is
> something like:
> 
> 
> 	<h1>head</h1>
> 	<ul>
> 	<li>xxx
> 	</ul>
> 
> 
> At first you might think that this is equivalent to:
> 
> 	<h1>head</h1>
> 	<p></p>
> 	<ul>
> 	<li><p>xxx</p>
> 	</ul>
> 
> But you can't omit start tags of empty elements:
> 
> >From ISO 8879-1986, 7.3.1.1 Start-tag Omission:
> 
> 	The start-tag can be omitted if the element is a contextually
> 	required element and if any other elements that could occur
> 	are contextually optional elements, except if:
> 
> 	a) the element type has a required attribute or declared content, or
> 	b) the content of the instance of the element is empty
> 
> Dan
> 

Ya, I have a copy of the Handbook on my desk.

	<P> has no required attributes.
	<P> does not have declared content.
	<P> is not an empty element and it 

What's your point?  I'm probably being thick, but I don't see it.

Murray