W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Spec question. xml:space

From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:19:47 +0800
To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C60E2463.A3AC%gadams@xfsi.com>
i think there is no ambiguity; you need to to distinguish between whitespace
at the XML level and whitespace at the application level; xml:space is used
to signal authorial intention at the application level;

in particular, referring to XML 1.0 5th Ed. Section 2.10,

> An XML processor must always pass all characters in a document that are not
> markup through to the application. A validating XML processor must also inform
> the application which of these characters constitute white space appearing in
> element content.

so in case of DFXP, all whitespace is passed from XML processor to DFXP
application processor; at that point, it is up to DFXP application processor
to determine which of these whitespace appear in element content; in the
current spec we normatively define, by means of the XML Representation ­
Element Information Item definitions, this usage by means of reference to
#PCDATA via the definition of Inline. class Element Vocabulary Group (Table
4 of Section 5.3.1);

since Block.class (which is used to define the content model for <div/>)
does not include #PCDATA, then whitespace in a div context must never be
considered element content, regardless of the value of xml:space;

xml:space only says what the intention is for treating whitespace in
#PCDATA, and not whitespace in non-#PCDATA contexts;

On 4/16/09 11:30 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Right, but that brings us back to the original starting point: Should
> xml:preserve create a block level item to hold the preserved PCDATA in a div
> context or not. I donıt believe the spec is clear on that point, it doesnıt
> say that it should, but then it doesnıt say it shouldnıt either. My
> expectation is that it should not, but Iıd like some words in the spec to
> indicate this explicitly.
>  
> 
> 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: 16 April 2009 4:17 PM
> To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List
> Subject: Re: Spec question. xml:space
>  
> 
> well, the same information is also obtained from the XML Representation ­
> Element Information Item of div and p, in sections 7.1.4 and 7.1.5,
> respectively, which, under the Content definition includes Block.class for the
> former and Inline.class for the latter, where these latter two are defined in
> Table 4 in Section 5.3.1, where you can see that only Inline.class includes
> #PCDATA, i.e., having a mixed content model
> 
> On 4/16/09 11:05 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a note in the Section 4 abstract document type, or under xml:space
> would clarify this?
>  
> 
> 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: 16 April 2009 3:28 PM
> To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List
> Subject: Re: Spec question. xml:space
> 
> Itıs not straightforward to extract this information from the text of the
> spec. From the RNG schemaıs Content Module (C.1.2.3), the definition of
> TTAF.Inline.class includes the keyword ³text², which is referenced by
> TTAF.p.content, but not by TTAF.div.content. TTAF.div.content includes
> TTAF.Block.class which does not include ³text². A similar logic applies for
> the XSD schema.
>  
> On 4/16/09 10:20 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks, thatıs kind of what I thought, but I donıt see what combination of
> spec references provides that answer.
>  
> From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com]
> Sent: 16 April 2009 2:53 PM
> To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List
> Subject: Re: Spec question. xml:space
> 
> 
> On 4/16/09 8:57 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Iım  trying to determine the proper handling of xml:space in the following
> example fragment:
> 
> My question is, what if anything should happen to preserved space between the
> div and first and last p and between the p elements. Inline text is not legal
> here, so should anonymous <p> elements be inserted, or is the space  ignored?
> [GA] It (the whitespace) is ignored since the content type for <tt:div> is not
> MIXED.
> 
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 04:28:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:42 GMT