W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: RFC: White Space Handling In XML Parsing

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:10:00 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990521110406.00fed1f4@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: www-dom@w3.org
At 09:04 1999 05 21 -0400, Arkin wrote:
>... we all know that some
>spaces are not data, and that the DOM does not preserve txtual format.
>According to the DOM, the following two can be returned as the same tree
>content:
>
>  <img    src = "http://www.test.com"
>          alt = "Nothing else to say" />
>
>and
>
>  <img alt="Nothing else to say" src="http://www.test.com"/>
>
>Notice how the formatting information is lost, even the order of

You are using the phrasing "formatting information" in a way that
I find extremely unusual, and that might be contributing to some
misunderstandings.  I know of no one in the various XML-related
WGs or the DOM WG or the XSL WG (all of which I'm on) that considers 
the details of spacing and line breaks in the source file to be 
"formatting information."   

>attributes is not the same. If your editor is trusting the DOM to
>deliver a visual presentation of the source document, you better
>re-think it.

You can rest assured that I'm well aware that whitespace within
markup is ignored and that "my editor" has no plans or desire to
maintain such details of the source document (whatever "a visual
presentation of the source document" means).

I'm afraid I remain unclear on why you think an RFC about whitespace
in XML parsing is necessary or even a good idea.  What about the XML
spec are you trying to change (and why)?  Or, if you're not trying to
change something, what's the point of the RFC?
Received on Friday, 21 May 1999 12:10:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:46 GMT