[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RANT: Whitespace is not an issue?
OK - I just need to rant. I watched hundreds
of emails on
the W3C Schema WG on this whitespace. I
struggle when
these document-heads get religious about this
stuff!
For me this is as simple as it gets from an
eBusiness
stance - if you are designing eBusiness systems
and
exchanges that can be broken by whitespace issues -
you need to go back and fix your
design!
Also - when it comes down to it - if you are
shipping
payloads where format specific information is critical
use CDATA [[ - that's what its there for!
Beyond that - there's a bigger principle that I'd
like
to mention - that relates to interoperability and
implementablity of our specifications:
1) BPSS should only rely on W3C schema specific
features
as a last resort. Basic
XML mechanisms should
be preferred whereever
possible.
2) BPSS should strive to use only features of W3C
schema
that are pervasive,
simple and widely adopted and
consistently used.
My rationale is obvious - I want BPSS to not run
foul of
any deployment and versioning issues WRT vendors
schema
parser implementations.
I'm not sure this latest issue over
whitespace
is something we need to spend any more time on than
absolutely
necessary. Maybe a simple design note - to
the effect that we
expect people to build business processes where
whitespace is
not an issue, and to use XML constructs to
resolve ambiguous
information content accordingly. If
they are using BPSS to
control document workflows and whitespace within
payloads
is important - then CDATA [[ should be used to
remove
any possibility that payloads are manipulated
by the transport
layer(s).
Thanks, DW.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]