- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:48:16 -0400
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: liam@w3.org, public-microxml@w3.org
James Clark scripsit: > a) allow newlines but normalizes to spaces (as XML): compatible with > XML, but leaves MicroXML with ugly and surprising Yes, we don't want Teh Ugly, and transforming data behind the scenes is Teh Ugly. I assume this normalization was included in the days of fixed-length records (actual or virtual punch cards) where you might be forced to split an attribute value across physical records. But even the simplest editors allow long lines nowadays. > b) disallow literal newlines: compatible with XML; users can still > include newlines using numeric character references; possibly better > error recovering when a closing quote is missing; maybe a surprising > limitation, but then again lots of programming languages don't allow > literal newlines in string literals I think this is the least surprising behavior for people who don't know XML's quirks: if they try putting multi-line text into an attribute value, it will fail fast. At Google, I was asked to take a look at an XML-based API that was "losing data" between the sender and the receiver. It turned out that the format called for putting a whole RFC 822 email into an attribute value. "Won't work, guys", said I. > c) allow newlines but don't normalize them: most useful behaviour but > incompatible with XML And therefore a non-starter. > Currently the spec has (c), but I can see definite advantages to (b). I think we should shift to (b). -- An observable characteristic is not necessarily John Cowan a functional requirement. --John Hudson cowan@ccil.org
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 06:48:38 UTC