- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:23:43 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5193 cmsmcq@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status Whiteboard| |thimble, easy ------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org 2008-01-04 02:23 ------- On the first point, see also bug 4368. On the second point, you are right. And yet -- is it a fool's errand to wish to make explicit that where the treatment of whitespace (or white space) differs between XML 1.0 and 1.1 (I mean in particular the treatment of U+0085, the NEL of ISO 6429) the schema processor may do either, and should document which? The wording quoted talks about white space, not about the 's' production in the XML spec; I have a vague recollection of wording it carefully to ensure that it made sense even though the 's' production has not change. Of course XSDL defines its input (for better or worse) as an infoset, not an XML document, and so one could argue that the difference is really utterly out of scope for the spec. In that case, I think I would probably argue for a non-normative Note pointing out the issue in terms that make clear that it's (a) a question of how the input infoset is created, and thus out of scope for the XSDL spec, and (b) a question of how an XML document taken as input is read, and thus of some interest for users who hope to use our technology instead of only admiring the purity of our spec's concentration on untestable abstractions, and who care about getting the same results from one processor to another.
Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 02:23:53 UTC