Thanks for encouraging me on this. I think it will be such a common
occurrence that it should be in the XML-lang spec. I will raise my
head over the parapet again...
>
> >Problem 3.
> >This seems to imply that a WF document *produces different output* if it is
> >validated against a DTD. I accept this is true for SGML, but is it also
> >true for XML? If so, I think we shall have an awful problem educating
> >people.
>
> Yes. This is why I said we should keep *all* PCDATA; at least application
> will always know what to expect. RE delenda est (David Durand's and my idea)
> also get's around this problem nicely in a slightly different way.
>
> I am somewhat dissatisfied with this apect of XML, but can live with it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think this is true for anyone brought up in the tradition of SGML. It's
much tougher for a webhacker. It's not easy to realise that:
<CML>
<!-- a comment -->
<XVAR>...
inserts TWO separate newlines in the parser output from a WF document. It
fooled me. Most people would assume there weren't any.
P.
-- Peter Murray-Rust, domestic net connection Virtual School of Molecular Sciences http://www.vsms.nottingham.ac.uk/