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

Re: Closing Blueberry

• From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>
• To: jcowan@r...
• Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:26:37 +0100

John Cowan wrote

>Read it more closely.  The *characters* (i.e. non-markup) returned
>to the application are *as if* all CRs and CRLFs had been changed
>to LFs before parsing.
>
>That means a parser can keep the original representation right up to
>the moment it is creating a DOM Text node or invoking the
>SAX characters callback, at which point CRs that do not come from
>character references must be removed or changed to LFs.  Since CR is
>allowed in the S production, any CR characters in markup need not
>be removed or changed.

Right, a Parser could translate CRs in the input stream or, if it chose to,
delay the translation until passing the character data to the application.
I think there are examples of both currently on the market.  This works fine
while the "S" production contains all the characters that are subject to
normalization, because the net effect of translating before or after parsing
will be the same.  However, if you add additional characters to the
normalization rules without reflecting that change in the "S" production,
you will potentially create two classes of XML processor: those that accept
NELs in markup and those that don't.

For example, an XML processor that performs the translation before parsing
will accept <a {NEL} foo="bar"> whereas a processor that delays the
normalization will not.

Regards
~Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
To: <jcowan@r...>
Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: 20 July 2001 00:51
Subject: Re: Closing Blueberry


> >Read it more closely.  The *characters* (i.e. non-markup) returned
> >to the application are *as if* all CRs and CRLFs had been changed
> >to LFs before parsing.
> >
> >That means a parser can keep the original representation right up to
> >the moment it is creating a DOM Text node or invoking the
> >SAX characters callback, at which point CRs that do not come from
> >character references must be removed or changed to LFs.  Since CR is
> >allowed in the S production, any CR characters in markup need not
> >be removed or changed.
>
> Are you suggesting that if NEL were added to the translated line-end
> characters, but not to the S production, this would not be sufficient
> to make
>
>   <fooNELa="1">
>
> (where NEL represents the character) legal?
>
> -- Richard
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l...
>
>

• References:
  • Re: Closing Blueberry
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Father of XML?
• Next by Date: RE: XML Print Publishing Systems?
• Previous by thread: Re: Closing Blueberry
• Next by thread: NEL where?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread