RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
> > > The normalization of CR, LF and CRLF can be avoided by using their > > > character entities. So I still can preserve fidelity. > > > > I don't think this is true. For instance, using MSXSL, try: > > I don't think using an implementation of XSLT is a valid way to > say what the XML spec says should be done. Its always dangerous > to use an implementation (with possible bugs) as a means of saying > what the spec says. Let's be clear. The XML specification describes (in effect) how an infoset is constructed from a source character stream, and it explains that native CR, CRLF, etc are normalized to x0a, while character entities such as
are not normalized. The XSLT specification describes how an infoset is serialized to a result character stream, and the only thing it says about how x0a and x0d characters should be serialized is the statement that the serialized XML must parse back to the same infoset. This means that if the result tree contains an x0a character, it can be serialized interchangeably as CR, CRLF, LF, or
but if it contains an x0d character, it must be serialized as
. So my reading is that the character reference
will not necessarily be preserved through an XSLT transformation (it may end up as CRLF), while the character reference
should be preserved. I'd be surprised if Saxon gets this right...! Mike Kay
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format