[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] white-space processing proposal
On 22/09/06, Lars Oppermann <Lars.Oppermann@sun.com> wrote: > > I didn't keep the email, but IIRC that was the phrase referring out > > the html? > > Do you believe that to be specific? > > It was specific enough for me. If you have a proposal on how to further > clarify it, I'd be happy to see that. I read waffle, not specifics. Am I that picky? > > > The > >> specification furthermore defines the test:s element to represent > >> sequences of white-space. > > OK. If it is retained. > > Yes, it is. Otherwise the content of the document would be altered. NO (IMHO) it *is* altered. sp sp sp => some xml markup. > > >> White-space in ODF context has no semantic meaning beyond that of a word > >> delimiter. > > > > Is that a personal view or a quote from the spec? > > It is my interpretation of the fact that the spec calls for collapsing > sequences of literal white-space in the physical XML representation. If > sequences of white-spaces are to be represented, <text:s> is to be used. If? and if not......? Why change content to markup? In the same way, perhaps if I write mmmmm an implementation can change it to <char v='m' count='5'/> is that also the case? > > Maybe that is part of the confusion here. We need to differentiate > between white-space in the document and white-space in the XML > representation of the document. Not on my part. I want my XML to remain. You seem happy to modify it. Is that the confusion? They are not the same. Because the spec > allows for collapsing of literal white-spaces in the XML, we can use > <text:s> to represent actual whitespace in the document. Equally MB seems to want to discard it without author consent. Which is it? Discard or convert to mark-up? Literal > white-space in the XML is either a word delimiter, syntactic sugar or > both. Why are you unwilling to see it as content? There is no other semantic information that can be conveyed by > literal white-space beyond that of word delimiter. Sequences of white > space must be encoded as <text:s>. I disagree with that view. > > OK, we disagree. > > I have described above how I arrived at that view. The additional > benefit of this view is, that you can reformat the physical XML to your > liking without changing the meaning of the document. No. Your view of semantics. It may not be a user view. Please provide some > explanation as to what the benefit of making the literal white space in > the XML representation is. No different from the xml rec itself. It is shy of deciding on ws semantics, why are you so bold? > > Furthermore, there is nothing that prevents you from doing an > implementation that retains literal white-space. It would be in full > accordance with the specification. Which makes it clear that the spec is obscure, non-specific. > > > [...] > > My view. A high value aspect of ODF is that I can process the XML > > for other purposes. I may generate it using an implementation, > > I may edit it in an implementation, but the high value to an organisation > > is the XML on disk. > > Clearly you see no value in that. > > You are extending my statement of literal white-space being not > significant beyond word separation in the XML representation (which is your view) to an > assertion about the general value of the XML representation. This is not > acceptable. As I said, that is your view. We differ Lars. That's all. Lets close this thread. We are getting nowhere. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]