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

Re: Abstract Equivalence (was Microsoft FUD on binaryXML...)

• To: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Subject: Re: Abstract Equivalence (was Microsoft FUD on binaryXML...)
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:26:46 -0500
• Cc: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <3FC2AA68.9060806@a...>
• References: <004d01c3b075$9552a730$650aa8c0@BOBDEV><96DAA8B4-1D31-11D8-95EE-000A95BA5A2C@o...><3FBFF731.4020909@a...> <3FC1DB0A.80804@e...><3FC1F581.3010306@a...> <3FC228F6.FFDD3DE1@f...><3FC2AA68.9060806@a...>

At 1:03 AM +0000 11/25/03, Alaric B Snell wrote:

>Well, a poem as a Unicode string in an ASN.1 encoding will preserve 
>whitespace; since whitespace inside a string in an ASN.1 value is 
>ALWAYS significant (unlike whitespace in strings in XML, which is 
>sometimes used just for indentation of elements and suchlike).

Not true. Conformant XML parsers *always* report all white space in 
element content. It is an application level decision whether or not 
to consider boundary white space and/or ignorable whitespace to be 
significant.

>From what I know of most poetry, typeface is insignificant, but 
>whitespace is, yes?

I know at least one modern poet (my wife) in some of whose poetry 
type face is significant. I'm not particularly familiar with most 
modern poetry, but I suspect she wasn't the first to do this.

Of course white space is significant in some poetry as well, e.e. 
cummings being the most famous current example. In most poetry taught 
in high school in which, white space is only significant in terms of 
word and line breaks. But in many ancient (and a few modern) 
languages, white space didn't even exist, but there was still poetry!
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• References:
  • RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
  • Abstract Equivalence (was Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
  • Re: Abstract Equivalence (was Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: New programs (semantics, grid computing, web services, service-oriented architecture, ebXML)
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schema Question
• Previous by thread: Re: Abstract Equivalence (was Microsoft FUD on binaryXML...)
• Next by thread: RE: Abstract Equivalence (was Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread