From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Indentation contest nxml vs xml-mode Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 19:31:51 -0800 Message-ID: <002201c88003$c8a5deb0$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> References: <47D03AE7.8070408@gmail.com> <00a601c87fba$febc3150$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> <47D0679F.5000001@gmail.com> <00da01c87fd8$6c881420$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> <47D07254.9020508@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204860859 26048 80.91.229.12 (7 Mar 2008 03:34:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:34:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Jason Rumney' , 'Emacs Devel' To: "'Lennart Borgman \(gmail\)'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 07 04:34:46 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JXTM3-0002aE-Ps for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:34:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXTLW-0001BQ-7g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:34:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXTKr-0000vy-Nf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:33:29 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXTKp-0000v6-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:33:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXTKp-0000v2-Eh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:33:27 -0500 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JXTKl-00084Z-6t; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:33:23 -0500 Original-Received: from agmgw2.us.oracle.com (agmgw2.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.213]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id m273XJOb016234; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:33:19 -0600 Original-Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id m26CbN7G002505; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:33:18 -0700 Original-Received: from inet-141-146-46-1.oracle.com by acsmt350.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3602697341204860712; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:31:52 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.88.222) by bhmail.oracle.com (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:31:52 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <47D07254.9020508@gmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: Ach/2tMFAbycfPkNSeyqT9cOz/2wjQAIzKFA X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91583 Archived-At: > Though as Jason (I believe) pointed out when we discussed it > last time whitespace is not significant (most of the time ...) in > XHTML, only in XML. But it is sometimes -- and those times are > really hard to detect since they might depend on the style sheet, or? The significance or not of whitespace is not something up for a vote or a beauty contest. It is well-defined for XML. And XHTML is XML. What you might be trying to say is that many programs that use XHTML code do not, themselves, detect or make use of whitespace that is, technically speaking, significant (in terms of XML). That is another matter entirely. Whether you or a Web browser does or does not actually distinguish between two documents that differ in significant XML whitespace is not the point. There is a big difference between XML documents or fragments being indistinguishable in terms of significant whitespace and their being distinguishable. XML tools and databases go to great pains to preserve and restore significant whitespace, even when they sacrifice insignificant whitespace. It's fine to have tools that also let you preserve insignificant whitespace (that's sometimes important), or that also let you sacrifice whitespace that is significant in terms of its XML meaning but might not be significant to you. But tools should at a minimum have a mode that lets you preserve significant whitespace. And indentation should not gratuitously alter significant whitespace. Doing that would be akin to TAB indenting text in the middle of a Lisp string.