W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: [editorial] white space reference to XML specification

From: Andrew Hunt <andrew.hunt@speechworks.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 23:05:50 +0100
To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "Susan Lesch" <lesch@w3.org>, <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBIPBPMMJJJOKAKJHNIEHAEFAA.andrew.hunt@speechworks.com>
Susan, Al,

We have addressed each of the change requests in this email thread.

1. "white space" contains white space -- it's not one word.

2. White space and its handling is normatively defined for the
   grammar spec by reference to the XML definition recommended
   by Al.

We have made other changes through the document to clarify the
syntax and semantics of white space particularly as it applies
to token handling and headers in ABNF.

A W3C Member Only draft is available at:

Please let us know in the next two weeks whether we have addressed
your white space remarks.

Finally, I apologize for the long delay in processing this thread.

--Andrew Hunt
  Co-editor SRGS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Al Gilman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 6:15 AM
> To: Susan Lesch; www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [editorial] white space reference to XML specification
> At 10:56 PM 2001-09-24 , Susan Lesch wrote:
> >>  The section cited above deals only with 'white space' appearing outside
> the
> >>  markup.  For the definition of what is to be considered as white space it
> >>  depends on the syntax presented earlier in
> >>
> >>   Common Syntactic Constructs
> >>  
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-common-syn>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#se
> c-common-syn
> >>
> >>  which is a better location to point to for the definition as used in XML
> >>  1.0.
> >
> >Good point. I could use that in the future. The point of pointing to
> >the XML Recommendation is only to show that it spells "white space" as
> >two words. (The link I gave shows that in a heading.)
> >
> Susan, I don't want to beat on _you_ because you done good.  You didn't
> need to
> use the precise reference to the 'correct' point of definition.  But in the
> Grammar spec, we still do need to.
> The point of pointing to the XML specification from your comment is to show
> the
> difference in spelling between the two documents.
> The point of pointing to the XML specification from the Grammar specification
> (which I recommended) is a bit different.  The Grammar specification needs to
> inherit the technical definition of white space [sic] from the XML
> Specification or the Grammar specification is -- a) undefined or b) defined in
> conflict with the senior specification -- in the normative things it says
> about
> white space.  The reference is here a piece of specification code which is
> required to construct the specification correctly.  You can cite the whole
> document in which case the user knows to search the document for the defining
> occurrence.  Or you cite the defining occurrence.  But those are your
> choices.
> To document the relationship where there is a dependency you don't cite a
> random other occurrence somewhere else inside the document.  That would be
> misdirection, because people would expect you are pointing them to the
> definition that you need.  Pointing a dependency at anything more local than
> the whole configuration item usually connotes a reference to where the thing
> you depend on is defined in the defining document.
> So, for the purposes of the editors of the Grammar spec, it makes a
> difference.
> To point out the problem, it doesn't matter.  In this case, to fix the
> problem,
> it does matter; otherwise we introduce new problems.
> Al
Received on Sunday, 3 March 2002 17:07:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:03:45 UTC