On 8/4/05, Danny Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't really understand why this should be treated any differently > than the numerous other problematic things that could happen if one > doesn't take the spec literally. (I'd suggest spec prose trumps RNG > grammar, as there's a lot of other stuff not expressable in the > grammar).
"Some sections of this specification are illustrated with fragments of a non-normative RELAX NG Compact schema [RELAX-NG]. However, the text of this specification provides the definition of conformance. A complete schema appears in Appendix B." This is quoted directly from Section 1.3. This whitespace issue is a good illustration of why the schema isn't normative ;) I would vote for leaving the text as is and having the validator give errors on whitespace. We have the same issue with dates and believe they should be flagged likewise, i.e. errors on whitespace. -joe > > But now the issue has been raised, it does seem reasonable to add a > note (assuming the process is ok for that) to the effect that stray > whitespace in content is an error. I can't see how it can be desirable > to allow it (though am not given to lying in the road). > > At the application level we're back to Postel again - publishers > shouldn't pump this stuff out, but liberal clients may find it useful > to trim whitespace from IRI and date fields. But surely that's outside > the scope of the format spec itself. > > Cheers, > Danny. > > -- > > http://dannyayers.com > > -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
