0. The validator isn't the spec. cheers Bill
James M Snell wrote: > > +++1 > > Joe Gregorio wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
