- From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:19:47 +0800
- To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C60E2463.A3AC%gadams@xfsi.com>
i think there is no ambiguity; you need to to distinguish between whitespace at the XML level and whitespace at the application level; xml:space is used to signal authorial intention at the application level; in particular, referring to XML 1.0 5th Ed. Section 2.10, > An XML processor must always pass all characters in a document that are not > markup through to the application. A validating XML processor must also inform > the application which of these characters constitute white space appearing in > element content. so in case of DFXP, all whitespace is passed from XML processor to DFXP application processor; at that point, it is up to DFXP application processor to determine which of these whitespace appear in element content; in the current spec we normatively define, by means of the XML Representation Element Information Item definitions, this usage by means of reference to #PCDATA via the definition of Inline. class Element Vocabulary Group (Table 4 of Section 5.3.1); since Block.class (which is used to define the content model for <div/>) does not include #PCDATA, then whitespace in a div context must never be considered element content, regardless of the value of xml:space; xml:space only says what the intention is for treating whitespace in #PCDATA, and not whitespace in non-#PCDATA contexts; On 4/16/09 11:30 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: > Right, but that brings us back to the original starting point: Should > xml:preserve create a block level item to hold the preserved PCDATA in a div > context or not. I donıt believe the spec is clear on that point, it doesnıt > say that it should, but then it doesnıt say it shouldnıt either. My > expectation is that it should not, but Iıd like some words in the spec to > indicate this explicitly. > > > 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: 16 April 2009 4:17 PM > To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List > Subject: Re: Spec question. xml:space > > > well, the same information is also obtained from the XML Representation > Element Information Item of div and p, in sections 7.1.4 and 7.1.5, > respectively, which, under the Content definition includes Block.class for the > former and Inline.class for the latter, where these latter two are defined in > Table 4 in Section 5.3.1, where you can see that only Inline.class includes > #PCDATA, i.e., having a mixed content model > > On 4/16/09 11:05 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: > Perhaps a note in the Section 4 abstract document type, or under xml:space > would clarify this? > > > 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: 16 April 2009 3:28 PM > To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List > Subject: Re: Spec question. xml:space > > Itıs not straightforward to extract this information from the text of the > spec. From the RNG schemaıs Content Module (C.1.2.3), the definition of > TTAF.Inline.class includes the keyword ³text², which is referenced by > TTAF.p.content, but not by TTAF.div.content. TTAF.div.content includes > TTAF.Block.class which does not include ³text². A similar logic applies for > the XSD schema. > > On 4/16/09 10:20 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: > Thanks, thatıs kind of what I thought, but I donıt see what combination of > spec references provides that answer. > > From: Glenn A. Adams [mailto:gadams@xfsi.com] > Sent: 16 April 2009 2:53 PM > To: Sean Hayes; Public TTWG List > Subject: Re: Spec question. xml:space > > > On 4/16/09 8:57 PM, "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: > Iım trying to determine the proper handling of xml:space in the following > example fragment: > > My question is, what if anything should happen to preserved space between the > div and first and last p and between the p elements. Inline text is not legal > here, so should anonymous <p> elements be inserted, or is the space ignored? > [GA] It (the whitespace) is ignored since the content type for <tt:div> is not > MIXED. >
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 04:28:35 UTC