- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:57:49 +0100
- To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The question of pinning down the [element content whitespace] property of character infoitems in the output of processors conforming to the minimum and basic XML processor profiles has come up. Our reading of the XML spec. is that it leaves open the question of whether a non-validating process supplies that information to applications. My reading of the Infoset spec. is that it carefully allows for the possibility that they do. So, some questions: 1) In the spirit of trying to provide a deterministic answer to the "What infoset do you get" question wrt our profiles, what should we say wrt [element content whitespace], i.e. must be absent, must be present and accurate? 2) Does RXP/xmlproc provide e-c-w information when it's not validating but there is a doctype? 3) Do you happen to know what any other parser does in this regard? 4) Or, do you think the above analysis is wrong and it's actually an error for a processor which isn't validating to supply e-c-w information? Thanks, ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFMBS39kjnJixAXWBoRAi56AJ0dOwor1ZBplVZDmm3fSdqTzBobugCfXR25 TWixdzAQe0l/3XSsUQZAujA= =THUd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 15:58:33 UTC