> Well sorry to disagree but I think the other way is better. Ignorable
> whitespace should be included by defaults.
+1. By no means should the parser muck with whitespace as the default.
-scott
Arnaud Le
Hors To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Scott
Boag/CAM/Lotus)
m.com> Subject: Re: Pretty print problem
in serializer in 1.0.1
01/07/00
04:56 PM
Please
respond to
xerces-dev
Assaf Arkin wrote:
>
> +1 from me :-)
>
> arkin
>
> Andy Clark wrote:
> >
> > Assaf Arkin wrote:
> > >
> > > Ignorable whitespace, not just whitespace.
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > > I think the feature should be "include ignorable whitespace as text
> > > nodes" and off by default.
Well sorry to disagree but I think the other way is better. Ignorable
whitespace should be included by defaults. The main reason for that is:
By the XML 1.0 spec validating XML processors are required to provide
this information [1], and this is confirmed by the XML Infoset spec [2].
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-white-space
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xml-infoset-19991220#infoitem.character
In addition, it seems desirable that the tree doesn't change too much
whether the validation is on or off.
While DOM Level 2 doesn't expose the fact that there are Text nodes
containing such whitespace (commonly called "ignorable whitespace"), it
is on the issues list for DOM Level 3.
> > So how about the following ID?
> >
> > http://apache.org/xml/features/dom/include-ignorable-whitespace
> >
> > It's getting a little verbose but that's probably erring on
> > the side of understandability.
I don't care much what the name is.
Besides, Assaf, I really think that a serializer ought to look into the
Text nodes and deal with the fact that there may be some leading and
trailing whitespace. I consider not doing so a bug, since it makes all
of your efforts to smartly indent the nodes moot.
--
Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
