Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 5:54 PM -0800 1/5/04, Jeff Rafter wrote: >This is one of those questions that are more for curiousity than anything, >but does anyone have any information on why ignorableWhitespace was included >in ContentHandler as opposed to LexicalHandler? Based on my understanding of >the guidelines used in determining what belongs in the default interfaces >and what belongs in the extension interfaces it seems to fall under the >latter. It is non-imperative lexical information associated with the parse. >Comments? That is incorrect. XML parsers must report all content, ignorable or otherwise. It is not optional to report this content, unlike, for example, CDATA section boundaries. The word "ignorable" is an unfortunate choice here. It means the application receiving the data may choose to ignore it. However, the parser cannot ignore this content. It must provide it. It's also the case that a lot of white space many people think is ignorable really isn't. White space is only really ignorable if there's a DTD, and even then you may choose not to ignore it. I prefer the less loaded term "boundary white space" which identifies all white space only text nodes, not just those that are ignorable. -- 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
|
