Re: [office] Fwd: ODF spec question (white-space processing)

[Daniel Vogelheim <daniel@vogelheim.de>]

Hi David,

You wrote:
>On Monday 11 September 2006 01:04, Daniel Vogelheim wrote:
>> For the various reasons given in this and previous posts, I propose
>> that the 'in other words' part is simply being removed from the spec.
>> That should fix the problem with different interpretations in a very
>> easy, understandable, and concise manner, and in perfect accordance
>> with the original intentions.
[...]
>I am just not sure I fully understand your suggestion. If we keep the term "collapsed"
>and remove the reference to HTML, then we are basically deciding on the current 
>KOffice behavior, i.e. <text:p> followed by spaces leaves one space visible - right?

Yes, that *was* my suggestion since that is how I always understood
that part of the spec. Today's TC call decided differently, just as
you suggest. (And pretty much for exactly those reasons.)


[... example ...]
> <text:p>
>         My paragraph text
> </text:p>

I am curious as to whether those same people would expect the
following to not have any whitespace, too:

  <text:p>
    <text:span>
        My paragraph text
    </text:span>
  </text:p>

Which, according to absolutely everybody :), it seems, will have
whitespace.

However: According to the SGML whitespace processing rules, which were
sort of emulated in the early HTML specs, which were sort of evolved
into the HTML 4 rule(s) that we have been discussing in this thread,
this would NOT have been the case. That is, for all I can see, not
clearly defined in the HTML spec. (That is exactly the *optional* part
of the whitespace suppression behind start tags.)

(Oh, and just to be absolutely clear: I'm NOT trying to re-open the
discussion. Today's decision was sufficiently clear. I am really just
curious how people would use it...)


>So, to be clear, I'm happy with the OpenOffice.org behavior, but it should be made
>explicit in the specification. Not by talking about HTML, but by writing "any whitespace
>at the beginning or end of a paragraph is removed" or something like that.

Yes, my understanding of today's TC call is that this is exactly what
will happen. :-)


Sincerely,
Daniel