• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: SAX and ignorableWhitespace
• From: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>
• Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:54:37 -0800
• References: <r02000200-1028-3B006A8A3F3311D8B1470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0401052012180.18798@i...>

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?

Best Regards,
Jeff Rafter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX and ignorableWhitespace
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Formalism and complexity
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Formalism and complexity
    • From: Ian Graham <igraham@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Formalism and complexity
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
• Previous by thread: Re: Formalism and complexity
• Next by thread: Re: SAX and ignorableWhitespace
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread