W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2015

WG response to i18n-ISSUE-411: Definition of whitespace should come from Unicode

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:57:18 -0400
To: Steven Atkin <atkin@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ldp-comments@w3.org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, cowan@ccil.org, "Asmus Freytag (t)" <asmus-inc@ix.netcom.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <20150327155718.GB6284@w3.org>
This thread went on to discuss the usage of the various whitespace
characters but I believe there was consensus that programming/data
languages should use U+0009, U+000A, U+000D, U+0020 as whitespace.
The LDP WG believes this resolves this comment with no edits required.
Steven Atkin, as the originator of this comment, can you confirm?


On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2015 9:04 AM, "Asmus Freytag (t)" <asmus-inc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/6/2015 11:26 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2015 2:04 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:38:01PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>>> > > No, since you ask.  We use Unicode, but we don't require that every
>>> > > non-printing character be recognized as a delimiter.
>>> >
>>> > What I worry about is inconsistent handling of whitespace across
>>> > implementations.  But anyway, I guess this isn't really the place to
>>> > fix that up, since it'd be all over XML anyway, right?  (I guess I'm
>>> > just sensitive to this right now because the IETF tried to do clever
>>> > things with paring down Unicode to things we wanted, and it isn't
>>> > working quite as we'd hoped.)
>>>
>>> I suspect that whitespace is pretty consistently treated as the four
>>> control codes this point. In 2006 I tried a more inclusive definition of
>>> whitespace in SPARQL but folks said "what the hell is this? Everybody knows
>>> that whitespace is four characters." Had things like non-breaking,
>>> zero-width, all-singing space stayed in SPARQL, parsers would have required
>>> multi-byte lexers and the interoperability of incomplete implementations
>>> would have suffered.
>>>
>>> The downside is that someone typing in some script with its own
>>> whitespace (does that exist?) must use ASCII space, but they have to anyways
>>> because all of the language keywords are in ASCII.
>>
>>
>> For programming languages, sticking to the basic set for syntax purposes
>> makes a certain amount of sense.
>>
>> When you are dealing with text data, or free-form input, this approach can
>> be unnecessarily limiting.
>>
>> All the markup languages have the issue that both language syntax and text
>> content reside in the same "plain-text" file, leading to complicated rules
>> about which whitespace characters are part of the text content and which are
>> to be ignored for text purpose for being syntax characters.
>
> I completely agree with your analysis.
>
>> However, Andrew's point is well taken - it's important to not let the
>> programmer's attitude infect those parts of whatever protocol is being
>> designed that are concerned with representing full-text data. It better be
>> possible to not only represent all space characters (and zero width
>> characters), but to have them act on the text in the way they are defined in
>> Unicode when segmenting text for whatever purpose.
>
> That makes sense to me. I think that both XML and RDF are languages upon
> which such applications would be built. In a sense, the only way they can
> screw up would be to not permit non-ASCII whitespace characters. Do you
> agree?
>
>> A./
>>
>>> > A
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Andrew Sullivan
>>> > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>>> >
>>
>>



-- 
-ericP
office: +1.617.258.5741
mobile: +1.617.599.3509
Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 15:57:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:39 UTC