OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] white-space processing proposal

On 21/09/06, Peter Korn <Peter.Korn@sun.com> wrote:

> I wonder if we can separate this into multiple issues, and tackle them
> individually, and perhaps at least come to agreement on some (if not
> all) of them.
>  1. White space should be preserved in ODF XML
>  2. All ODF readers/writers should have the same understanding of white
> space in ODF XML
>  3. ODF XML should follow general XML rules

Amend 2 to read
All ODF readers/writers should have the same understanding of white
space processing in ODF XML
and I'd agree.

> It may well be that:
>   <text:p>  this  is  the   first    fragment</text:p>
> is a construction that no current ODF application/tool creates.
> Certainly SO/OOo won't do this.  It'll instead do something like:
> <text:p><text:s text:c="*2*" />this <text:s />is <text:s />the <text:s
> text:c="*2*" />first <text:s text:c="*3*" />fragment</text:p>
> So, if this behavior is clearly defined in the ODF spec, then we address
> #1 and #2 above, right?

If you agree that writing 5 spaces, then having it translated into an element
is 'preserving spaces'.
I wonder how many times it is more wasteful of file size?

Michael, I believe you'd disagree with 1, is that true?

That only leaves #3.
> Dave - is it not possible in XML to define the SO/OOo behavior as valid?

Validity doesn't come into it.
Conformant to XML 1.0 (or 1.1) is a precise statement.
Michael defines ODF implementations as XML applications which are a layer
above the xml 1.1 definition.

[Definition: A software module called an XML processor is used to read
XML documents and provide access to their content and structure.]

[Definition: It is assumed that an XML processor is doing its work on
behalf of another module, called the application.]

This  separates it from the requirements of an XML processor. I don't
believe users expect that.

1. I don't think ws processing is clearly specified in 1.1, e.g.
the phrasing casting out to html browser implementations as an example
is imprecise.
Michael appears to want to retain the status quo, with implementation dependence
due to lack of precision. I'd like the ODF spec to be precise.
My personal position is that I believe ODF should require ws processing as per
XML processors. My example proof might be,
Edit a writer document. Insert and remove a space. Write to disk.
Apart from metadata, the XML instance on disk should be identical to that read.
That demonstrates white space preservation.


Dave Pawson

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]