Re: OT: XHTML

Caleb Hines wrote:
>
> BTW, from a grammatical point of view, there is no reason why all closing
> tags couldn't just be written like </> or something similar. That would
> mean pop off whatever's on the top of the stack, or equivalently, close
> whatever the last opening tag was. Then we wouldn't have to worry about
> incorrectly nested tags. But it would probably be more difficult to read
> too.
I believe that SGML allows you to do just that, but it was never
implemented by HTML browsers and wasn't included in XML. While it would
make things simpler for a machine to parse, it'd be brutally hard to
hand-code without some assistance (like parenthesis-matching in emacs)

Replies