On Mon, Sep 05 2016, Tobias Berndt wrote: >> \startblabla >> \startitem First \stopitem >> \startitem Second \stopitem >> \startitem Third \stopitem >> \stopblabla > >>I'm sorry, but that's just horrible > ... yes, it certainly is! But, you will use these all closing tags > only if you want to have perfect XML output. In case, you just want to > have perfect PDFs and standard (X)HTML, you would use simply: > >> \startblabla >> \item First >> \item Second >> \item Third >> \stopblabla
Then what's the difference between "perfect XML" and "standard (X)HTML"? Isn't proper XHTML "perfect" enough? And still, isn't the fact that a new \item appears enough reason to assume that the previous \item should be closed off? It makes sense to have some way to close an element explicitly, because there are always edge cases where the parses needs to guess and guesses wrong. But to require it everywhere? Anyway, this discussion is veering off-topic... -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments _______________________________________________ auctex mailing list auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex
