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

"Daniel W. Connolly" <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 14:36:19 EDT
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
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 <9406151405.aa09822@dali.scocan.sco.COM>, Murray Maloney writes:
>What's your point?  I'm probably being thick, but I don't see it.

Well... I misspoke a bit when I said..

>> But you can't omit start tags of empty elements:

Had I said "You can't omit the start tags of elements with no
content," it might have been clearer.

The SGML spec is more precise:

>> 	b) the content of the instance of the element is empty

This is different from:

>	<P> is not an empty element and it 

But it is exactly the case in:

>> 	<h1>head</h1>
>> 	<p></p>
>> 	<ul>
>> 	<li><p>xxx</p>
>> 	</ul>

So the problem with inferring the whole P element (start tag, end tag,
and all) in this case is that the resulting P element doesn't have any
content (i.e. [to muddle things a bit more] it's content is empty) and
that makes it illegal to omit the start tag.

Get it?