[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Q. about 'DOM-Hash-total'

• To: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Subject: Re: Q. about 'DOM-Hash-total'
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:30:47 -0800
• Cc: "Scherpenzeel, Wim" <Wim.Scherpenzeel@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <6B2492D663ECD4119EB70008C7E6F67301DF17E9@s...> <3C349A0D.D15F9F5D@r...> <0b4201c19485$bcc9fd80$6800000a@b...>

David Brownell wrote:
> 
> From: "Ronald Bourret" <rpbourret@r...>
> >
> > "Insignificant whitespace"
> 
> I think you mean "ignorable whitespace" ...

Oops. Correct.

> >    is a concept introduced by SAX 1.0 for the
> > situation you described -- whitespace that appears between child
> > elements in an element known to have element content.
> 
> No, it's actually defined by the XML 1.0 specification.  Validating
> parsers must report that kind of whitespace specially.  And since
> it's easy for any parser that reads the (whole) DTD to report that,
> most SAX parsers do it too.

Oops again.

However, because the DOM only has text nodes, the DOM does not
distinguish between ignorable whitespace and non-ignorable whitespace as
far as I can tell. This would probably explain why the hash values for
the two DOM documents are different. (Note that canonical XML retains
both types of whitespace, which points out that the two documents are
different at a canonical level as well.)

-- Ron

• References:
  • Re: Q. about 'DOM-Hash-total'
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Q. about 'DOM-Hash-total'
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The use of XML syntax in XML Query
• Next by Date: RE: The use of XML syntax in XML Query
• Previous by thread: Re: Q. about 'DOM-Hash-total'
• Next by thread: Re: Q. about 'DOM-Hash-total'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread