[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] RE: On the white-space characters
it would have been a good idea to make use of xml:space in 2005, but, much as i hate the ODF specific whitespace collapsing, i'm afraid the backward compatibility impact of switching to xml:space now is too great. On 29.03.2017 19:07, Aarti Nankani wrote: > Adding office@lists.oasis-open.org to hear others thoughts on the below... > > > Thanks, > Aarti > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jos van den Oever [mailto:Jos.Oever@koop.overheid.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:52 AM > To: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>; Aarti Nankani <anankani@microsoft.com> > Subject: Re: On the white-space characters > > I have to make a correction: the current whitespace handling rules can remove spaces that were set to 'preserve' by xml:space. So xml:space only has effect if the current whitespace rules are not followed. > > A solution might be to only follow the ODF whitespace rules if xml:space is not set to 'preserve'. This would not be backwards compatible. > > Cheers, > Jos > > On 29-03-17 11:25, Jos van den Oever wrote: >> Hello Aarti and Patrick, >> >> Shouldn't we discuss this on office@lists.oasis-open.org? >> >> XML files in ODF are XML1.0 files. xml:space is part of that >> specification. So xml:space should be respected by ODF software. >> >> The whitespace handling that we are discussing is an additional >> mechanism. It's probably not needed except for backwards compatibility >> and the idea of simple deprecating it is a refreshing simplification. >> >> Question is: how do current implementations handle xml:preserve? >> >> Cheers, >> Jos >> >> On 29-03-17 01:24, Patrick Durusau wrote: >>> Aarti, >>> >>> Well, your right, XML already has whitespace rules, but we didn't >>> follow them long ago and far away when ODF 1.0 was written. I suspect >>> it was internal whitespace handling in OpenOffice that had diverged >>> from XML and that was captured in 1.0. I say that never having asked >>> any of the engineers why we diverged so long ago on such a routine issue. >>> >>> I have suggested XML whitespace handling at least once, perhaps more >>> than once. >>> >>> I think the controlling issue is existing code bases handle >>> whitespace as we specified it so long ago and to re-write and proof >>> that code, just to be consistent with XML, isn't viewed as a priority. >>> >>> Jos? >>> >>> Hope you are having a great day! >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> >>> On 03/28/2017 06:30 PM, Aarti Nankani wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Patrick/Jos, >>>> >>>> I was reading up on the whitespace issue >>>> https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-2102 >>>> <https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OFFICE-2102> >>>> >>>> XML already has an xml:space attribute to use when you want to >>>> preserve whitespace. >>>> >>>> Shouldn't this be controlled by the xml:space attribute on >>>> individual tags. XML already has whitespace collapsing rules. >>>> >>>> For example, in DOCX - if you want to have multiple spaces in >>>> between characters in a <w:t> tag, we put <w:t >>>> xml:space="preserve">This has spaces</w:t> >>>> >>>> What are the committee's thoughts on using the default XML parsing >>>> rules for spaces. Why not have ODF use that? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Aarti -- Michael Stahl | Software Engineer Platform Engineering - Desktop Team Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Sitz: Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München, HRB 153243, Geschäftsführer: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]