W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > November 1996

Re: Feedback on the spec

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:49:55 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0b33.32.19961117134848.009f853c@pop.intergate.bc.ca>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 07:04 AM 17/11/96 -0800, Jon Bosak wrote:
>| >> So let's lose the Space Handling bit.
>| >
>| >Amid much rejoicing in Toronto (and probablyu Japan)
>| ... (too happy/shocked for words)
>I wouldn't start dancing in the streets yet.

Jon is correct.  I thought it was obvious (although I should have said
so) that this was merely a personal point of view that I was advancing
in the WG.

>  If it is based on some new information
>that was not present during the long discussions that have already
>taken place on this subject, I would like a clear statement of that
>new information 

Three things.  (a) The principle we voted on sounded reasonable.  The
language that was generated in the spec (after a *whole lot* of
work) is messy, inelegant, and I think prone to misinterpretation.
Much like 8879.  Note the excellent and difficult question raised by
Paul Grosso in respect of white space at text entity boundaries.  I
predict that things like this will keep coming up us a result of 
us having opened the Pandora's box of interfering with users' data.

(b) having made the decision to reserve some attribute/element
namespace, we only had to use it once.  I think this is a signal
that we're doing something wrong.

(c) Because of our decision on unified attribute name space, no
element to which you might want to apply -xml-space can take an
enumerated-value attribute where the enumeration includes either
"keep" or "collapse".  The only solution is to change the
attribute values to "-xml-keep" and "-xml-collapse". 

- Tim
Received on Sunday, 17 November 1996 16:55:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:20 UTC