Last modified: 2006-01-21 02:14:11 UTC
There are extensions that only produce output but don't take any input, allowing
terminated empty elements for extensions would make the syntax more consistant.
Note that arguments would also have to be supported, that is,
(In reply to comment #0)
> There are extensions that only produce output but don't take any input, allowing
> terminated empty elements for extensions would make the syntax more consistant.
Just a comment about this being "more consistent" - this is based on the
interpretation of the extension markup as "being XML", rather than "happening to
look a bit like XML". If you think of the wiki markup as completely independent
of any other standard, having "<foo>bar</foo>" in no way implies having "<foo
/>" or even "<foo opt='bar'>". Not that I deny there's a certain elegance to XML
self-closing tags, I just think it's worth remembering that XML and wiki-markup
are two very different and basically unrelated beasts.
This change helps usability, as it would reduce the keystrokes needed to enter
an empty extension tag and would also reduce visual clutter (aka markup),
without being compulsory, so it seems wiki-good. It also reduces the need to
add more "magic words".
I applied a quick hack to support this in HEAD.
This was FIXED in CVS HEAD some time ago, there's a parsertest for it (along
with more extension stuff)