[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 8:53 AM -0500 1/24/03, G. Ken Holman wrote:
>My editing environment includes a spell-check facility. The fact
>that a word needs to be ignored because it isn't in the spell-check
>dictionary isn't an aspect of the information in my document: I will
>still format the document or process the document regardless of
>whether the word is spelled correctly or not. But, during editing
>time, it *is* important to escape the word explicitly so that I get
>a clean spell check. So I use <?no-spell start?> and <?no-spell
>end?> around the text that isn't to be checked ... and the editing
>environment protects such sequences.
I can see why you do this, and I'm not sure I've got a good
alternative. Nonetheless I'm deeply bothered by processing
instructions with extension; i.e. beginnings and ends. Such PIs can
cross element boundaries. For example,
<para>
That is a <?no-spell start?> tres <em>chic<?no-spell end?> dress</em>.
</para>
With care, I think SAX could handle that. I'm not sure anything else could.
Also, what happens is you leave off the end-instruction? or forget
the start instruction? There are reasons parsers check for tag
balancing. This side steps that in a way I'm not at all comfortable
with.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
