Subject: Two Proposed Resolutions for whitespace handling.

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:04:03 -0400

In Section 2, paragraph 5, 

   Both kinds of Atom Documents are specified in terms of the XML
   Information Set, serialised as XML 1.0 [W3C.REC-xml-20040204] and
   identified with the "application/atom+xml" media type.  Atom
   Documents MUST be well-formed XML.  This specification does not
   define a DTD for Atom Documents, and hence does not require them to
   be valid (in the sense used by XML).

append one of the following:

1.) Atom processors MAY consider leading and trailing whitespace in
element and attribute values to be significant.

2.) In attribute values and elements containing text, leading and
trailing whitespace is considered significant.

I give a big +1 to either option.

Robert Sayre

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:18:01 -0700

>I give a big +1 to either option.
+1 to #1

---

From: James Aylett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 22:53:36 +0100

> trailing whitespace is considered significant.

I'm in favour of the approach. I'd prefer #2, because I think it's
better to spell out that publishers have to be careful about
whitespace. This is true with #1 (since some Atom processors will
consider whitespace significant), after all.

James

-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  James Aylett                                                  xapian.org
  [email-masked]                               uncertaintydivision.org