W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > December 2008

Re: spec question xml:space=preserve

From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:35:25 +0800
To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C564B13D.6D98%gadams@xfsi.com>
Alternatively, we could specify that an anonymous span that is not a child
of <p> or <span> is to be pruned from the tree for purpose of presentation
processing. 


On 12/9/08 10:21 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:

> So, based on this interpretation, test suite tt002.xml is misleading.
>  
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
> <tt xml:space='preserve'
>    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1"
>    xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#style"
>    xmlns:ttm="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#metadata">
>  <head>
>      <ttm:title>Content Test - tt - 002</ttm:title>
>      <ttm:desc>Test the tt element with xml:space preserve.</ttm:desc>
>      <ttm:copyright>Copyright (C) 2008 W3C (MIT, ERCIM, Keio).</ttm:copyright>
>  </head>
>  <body>
>    <div>
>      <p begin="0s" end="10s">This text
>  must appear on two lines.</p>
>    </div>
>  </body>
> </tt>
>  
> I believe the rendered text in this case should contain two leading newlines
> before the two lines of text and then two newlines following, it for a total
> of 6 lines. I suggest we move the xml:space=¹preserve¹ to the <p> element, or
> change the description.
>  
> 
> Sean Hayes
> Media Accessibility Strategist
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>  
> Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>  
> 
> From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Sean Hayes
> Sent: 09 December 2008 12:16
> To: Glenn A. Adams; Public TTWG List
> Subject: RE: spec question xml:space=preserve
>  
> That would do it. I think a note that region is not a content element in 9.3.2
> would help though.
>  
> 
> Sean Hayes
> Media Accessibility Strategist
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>  
> Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>  
> 
> From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com]
> Sent: 09 December 2008 10:56
> To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List
> Subject: Re: spec question xml:space=preserve
>  
> 
> I believe region is NOT a content element, but defines a layout specification,
> which, in XSL-FO terms, would be an fo:block-container (as you note).
> 
> I believe there is no problem with respect to preserved whitespace inside
> region, since, according to 9.3.2 (1), only text nodes in a content element
> are subject to being treated as anonymous spans.
> 
> I suppose your last question is whether we should modeify the phrase ³that is
> not a child of a span element², yes?
> 
> In other words, I guess you are suggesting that the following:
> 
> span
>   sequence of text nodes ³ABC²
>   span
>     sequence of text nodes ³DEF²
>   sequence of text nodes ³GHI²
> 
> should be rewritten by 9.3.2 (1) to:
> 
> span
>   anonymous-span
>     sequence of text nodes ³ABC²
>   span
>     sequence of text nodes ³DEF²
>   anonymous-span
>     sequence of text nodes ³GHI²
> 
> So perhaps the language of 9.3.2 (1) should be modified and expanded to the
> following three rules:
> a) for each significant text node in a content element, synthesize an
> anonymous span to enclose the text node, substituting the new anonymous span
> for the original text node child in its sibling and parent hierarchy;
> 
> b) for each contiguous sequence of anonymous spans, replace the sequence with
> a single anonymous span which contains a sequence of text nodes representing
> the individual text node children of the original sequence of anonymous spans;
> 
> c) for each span element whose child is a single anonymous span, replace the
> anonymous span with its sequence of child text nodes;
> G.
> 
> On 12/9/08 6:24 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, but that leads to the question as to whether region is a content
> element? It¹s not in the content matter section so I perhaps not, but it has
> some content like behaviour defined in 9.3.2, so is whitespace significant in
> a region?
>  
> If region is considered a content element, then per 9.3.2, it maps to
> fo:block-container, which cannot take fo:inline as children so we would need
> more elaborate processing.
>  
> I also wonder, given we now allow nested spans, whether the first rule of
> 9.3.2 needs updating:
>  
> ³for each significant text node in a content element that is not a child of a
> span element, synthesize an anonymous span to enclose the text node,
> substituting the new anonymous span for the original text node child in its
> sibling and parent hierarchy;²
>  
>  
> 
> Sean Hayes
> Media Accessibility Strategist
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>  
> Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> 
> 
> From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com]
> Sent: 09 December 2008 04:09
> To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List
> Subject: Re: spec question xml:space=preserve
> 
> 
> Since xml:space has semantics irrespective of presentation processing, and
> since xml:space is generally permitted by XML itself on any element, then it
> should not be an error to specify on any element in DFXP. Note the last
> paragraph in DFXP CR 7.2.3.
> 
> 
> On 12/9/08 8:32 AM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> In DFXP should it be considered an error to use xml:space on elements other
> than span and p? 
>  
> My thinking is that if text creates anonymous spans, surely these should only
> be allowed where spans are allowed?
>  
> 
> Sean Hayes
> Media Accessibility Strategist
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>  
> Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 15:36:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:39 GMT