On 22/09/06, Lars Oppermann <> 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
