Re: Agree: empty P, container PP [Was: Hot Metal and HTML ]Murray Maloney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 14:16:36 EDT
From: Murray Maloney <email@example.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.com.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)*)
> 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:
> At first you might think that this is equivalent to:
> But you can't omit start tags of empty elements:
> >From ISO 8879-1986, 18.104.22.168 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
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.