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. <extension></extension> Instead of <extension/> Note that arguments would also have to be supported, that is, <extension foo="bar"/> Instead of <extension foo="bar"></extension>
(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.
Quick indeed.
This was FIXED in CVS HEAD some time ago, there's a parsertest for it (along with more extension stuff) RESOLVED FIXED
