On Jan 6, 2010, at 21:58 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Well, you know my concern. I want to understand the spec in order to
implement it properly. I'm not asking for any new normative statement, nor
any change to the existing ones. I would be fine with informative notes
explaining the intents of
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi Robin,
Le 18/12/2009 18:01, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Dec 18, 2009, at 16:36 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 18/12/2009 15:58, Robin Berjon a écrit :
P+C doesn't tie processors to a particular version of XML,
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi Robin,
Le 18/12/2009 18:01, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Dec 18, 2009, at 16:36 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 18/12/2009 15:58, Robin Berjon a écrit :
P+C doesn't tie processors to a particular version of XML,
Hi Robin,
Le 18/12/2009 18:01, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Dec 18, 2009, at 16:36 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 18/12/2009 15:58, Robin Berjon a écrit :
P+C doesn't tie processors to a particular version of XML, and lists its white
space characters accordingly (and defensively). If you're
For space characters, why did you add U+000B and U+000C?
I think this question is even more important if you note that XHTML 1 indicates
that U+000C is an invalid XML char (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_15)
Cyril
--
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe
On Dec 18, 2009, at 13:25 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
For space characters, why did you add U+000B and U+000C?
I think this question is even more important if you note that XHTML 1
indicates that U+000C is an invalid XML char (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_15)
I don't think that looking
Hi Widget addicts,
While reading again through the spec, I'm wondering why there are differences
between the PC spec and the XML spec in terms of white space handling.
PC defines:
* space characters as: U+0020, U+0009, U+000A, U+000B, U+000C, U+000D
* Unicode white space characters as:
