On 10.08.2010, at 22:08, Andreas Raab wrote:

> On 8/10/2010 12:33 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> Sounds like #isEmpty is buggy, it certainly should look at both contents and elements. And "canonical" may mean that there are no empty "shorthand" tags but always an opening and closing tag.
> 
> Good theory, but it seems that in that case the test that says:
> 
> 	(writer canonical not
> 		and: [self isEmpty and: [self attributes isEmpty not]])
> 
> could be shortened to just
> 
> 	(writer canonical not
> 		and: [self isEmpty])
> 
> no? I mean why would it matter if the list of attributes is empty or not? The way it's right now, you get:
> 
> node:= (XMLElement new) name: 'foo';
>    setAttributes: (Dictionary new);
>    yourself.
> 
> => '<foo></foo>'
> 
> even when running 'non-canonical' (due to 'self attributes isEmpty not' failing).
> 
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

I can't see the canonicalization having  anything to do with attributes being present or not:

	http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#Example-SETags

- Bert -