Re: A11: element content and mixed content?
At 9:20 AM 10/9/96, Bill Smith wrote:
>David Durand wrote:
>> If we drop the distinction, we must treat spaces and tabs as data elements
>> in element content (like tables) because without a DTD we can't tell
>> whether or not it is element content, and therefore "insignificant". Of
>> course, I'd say that we should drop it, and accept the restrictions on
>> whitespace, but the current leaning reflects the "code-formatting" needs
>> you and others have advocated.
>I don't think David is suggesting requiring a DTD. I'm firmly opposed to
>requiring a DTD, even a short form, to "properly" handle XML. If we cross the
>DTD/DTDless line, I think we will significantly reduce the liklihood that XML
>will be adopted. We should drop the distinction.
Well, I am making the point that if we want nonsignificant whitespace in
tables, we need the distinction _and_ a DTD. I agree that this is bad.
If we keep the distinction, that means that we either need a DTD (bad) or
we need to disallow "insignificant whitespace". This means that you can't
put spaces, newlines, or tabs inside element content to pretty-print your
code. I favor the prohibition.
I was interpreting this level of SGML-compatibility as preserving the
SGML distinction, but explicitly disallowing (in XML documents) something
SGML allows. Of course, you are right that it really says that in XML there
is no distinction, so my explanation (and thoughts) were muddy.
RE delenda est.
David Durand firstname.lastname@example.org \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams
MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________