Tom Bradford wrote: > > Gregory Steuck wrote: > > > the c++ programmers to actually spit out proper XML than this > > > bastardization of it. It will only help them in the end. > > This vaguely reminded me some SGML shortcut, or am I dreaming? > > I've seen it used in SML discussions, I don't remember it being part of > SGML, but maybe it is.
Yes, I think it is. I believe it's called End Tag Minimization. I'm guessing it was voted out of XML because not using them allows for more robust processing and enforcement of proper element nesting. I'd personally favor it though. But back to the original question, I agree with Tom. There isn't much point in doing "almost XML". It's true that using XML has a cost. For one thing, it's not anywhere near being the most compact format you could use. But that's not the only overhead. Fully compliant XML parsers have to deal with many obscure scenarios that make them inherently slower than most ad-hock parsers. But for the price you get a lot: a whole set of tools that are interoperable (and often available for free). Using your "almost XML" you pay most of the price of using XML without ANY of the benefits... -- Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Strategy Group --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
