- From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:38:57 +0800
- To: Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C564B212.6D9B%gadams@xfsi.com>
Or we could qualify 9.3.2 (7) to map anonymous spans to fo:inline only when their parent is p or span. I think this is the preferred way to resolve this issue. G. On 12/9/08 11:35 PM, "Glenn Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com> wrote: > Alternatively, we could specify that an anonymous span that is not a child of > <p> or <span> is to be pruned from the tree for purpose of presentation > processing. > > > On 12/9/08 10:21 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> So, based on this interpretation, test suite tt002.xml is misleading. >> >> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> >> <tt xml:space='preserve' >> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1" >> xmlns:tts="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#style" >> xmlns:ttm="http://www.w3.org/2006/10/ttaf1#metadata"> >> <head> >> <ttm:title>Content Test - tt - 002</ttm:title> >> <ttm:desc>Test the tt element with xml:space preserve.</ttm:desc> >> <ttm:copyright>Copyright (C) 2008 W3C (MIT, ERCIM, >> Keio).</ttm:copyright> >> </head> >> <body> >> <div> >> <p begin="0s" end="10s">This text >> must appear on two lines.</p> >> </div> >> </body> >> </tt> >> >> I believe the rendered text in this case should contain two leading newlines >> before the two lines of text and then two newlines following, it for a total >> of 6 lines. I suggest we move the xml:space=¹preserve¹ to the <p> element, or >> change the description. >> >> >> Sean Hayes >> Media Accessibility Strategist >> Accessibility Business Unit >> Microsoft >> >> Office: +44 118 909 5867, >> Mobile: +44 7875 091385 >> >> >> From: public-tt-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tt-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >> Sean Hayes >> Sent: 09 December 2008 12:16 >> To: Glenn A. Adams; Public TTWG List >> Subject: RE: spec question xml:space=preserve >> >> That would do it. I think a note that region is not a content element in >> 9.3.2 would help though. >> >> >> 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: 09 December 2008 10:56 >> To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List >> Subject: Re: spec question xml:space=preserve >> >> >> I believe region is NOT a content element, but defines a layout >> specification, which, in XSL-FO terms, would be an fo:block-container (as you >> note). >> >> I believe there is no problem with respect to preserved whitespace inside >> region, since, according to 9.3.2 (1), only text nodes in a content element >> are subject to being treated as anonymous spans. >> >> I suppose your last question is whether we should modeify the phrase ³that is >> not a child of a span element², yes? >> >> In other words, I guess you are suggesting that the following: >> >> span >> sequence of text nodes ³ABC² >> span >> sequence of text nodes ³DEF² >> sequence of text nodes ³GHI² >> >> should be rewritten by 9.3.2 (1) to: >> >> span >> anonymous-span >> sequence of text nodes ³ABC² >> span >> sequence of text nodes ³DEF² >> anonymous-span >> sequence of text nodes ³GHI² >> >> So perhaps the language of 9.3.2 (1) should be modified and expanded to the >> following three rules: >> a) for each significant text node in a content element, synthesize an >> anonymous span to enclose the text node, substituting the new anonymous span >> for the original text node child in its sibling and parent hierarchy; >> >> b) for each contiguous sequence of anonymous spans, replace the sequence with >> a single anonymous span which contains a sequence of text nodes representing >> the individual text node children of the original sequence of anonymous >> spans; >> >> c) for each span element whose child is a single anonymous span, replace the >> anonymous span with its sequence of child text nodes; >> G. >> >> On 12/9/08 6:24 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Fair enough, but that leads to the question as to whether region is a content >> element? It¹s not in the content matter section so I perhaps not, but it has >> some content like behaviour defined in 9.3.2, so is whitespace significant in >> a region? >> >> If region is considered a content element, then per 9.3.2, it maps to >> fo:block-container, which cannot take fo:inline as children so we would need >> more elaborate processing. >> >> I also wonder, given we now allow nested spans, whether the first rule of >> 9.3.2 needs updating: >> >> ³for each significant text node in a content element that is not a child of a >> span element, synthesize an anonymous span to enclose the text node, >> substituting the new anonymous span for the original text node child in its >> sibling and parent hierarchy;² >> >> >> >> 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: 09 December 2008 04:09 >> To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List >> Subject: Re: spec question xml:space=preserve >> >> >> Since xml:space has semantics irrespective of presentation processing, and >> since xml:space is generally permitted by XML itself on any element, then it >> should not be an error to specify on any element in DFXP. Note the last >> paragraph in DFXP CR 7.2.3. >> >> >> On 12/9/08 8:32 AM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: >> In DFXP should it be considered an error to use xml:space on elements other >> than span and p? >> >> My thinking is that if text creates anonymous spans, surely these should only >> be allowed where spans are allowed? >> >> >> Sean Hayes >> Media Accessibility Strategist >> Accessibility Business Unit >> Microsoft >> >> Office: +44 118 909 5867, >> Mobile: +44 7875 091385 >> >
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 15:39:46 UTC