James Fuller said:
> juanrgonzaleza@c... wrote:
>> James Fuller said:
>>
>>>Melvin Chin wrote:
>>
>> There are several advantages. In my previous message i cited
>> [http://www.concisexml.org/]
>>
>> <blockquote>
>> 5. Closing tagname is optional
>> Not only does this remove unnecessary clutter, but when ConciseXML is
>> used as the syntax for dynamic languages, the tagname may not be known
>> until runtime, and therefore the closing tagname must be optional.
>> </blockquote>
>
> w/o sounding too argumentative, 'removing unnec clutter' is not solved
> by this...putting in an something like </> this will confuse a number of
>  users.
>
> If the goal is to make representation shorter or more readable then
> there are some basic style conventions that can improve things in XML.

I think that is not that worried to ConciseXML people when decided to
leave naming the end tags optional, unless i was reading too beyond the
"...tagname may not be known until runtime..."

> IMHO, if we are considering changes to XML spec to achieve something
> more readable there are other things that should happen before tinkering
>  with lexical representation changes.

I think i was not considering changes in my initial reply to Melvin Chin.

If he needs end </> i recommended to him the use of ConciseXML instead
waiting for a modification of W3C XML that i) i doubt will be promoted ii)
even when accepted and the spec ready, it will take years before all was
working in real life.

> ...we dont need to
>  wait for mass adoption if you have a particular requirement.

Therein my advice to Melvin Chin to use ConciseXML if he needs the </>
option.

> cheers, Jim Fuller


Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)