- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:41:21 -0000
- To: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Lachlan Hunt'" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] > Sent: 31 January 2009 07:27 ... > >I think that the fact that some user agents may normalise and others not is > >likely to produce problems in the following cases: > > > >1. in situations where someone has specifically relied on the fact that > >although the two names are canonically equivalent in Unicode he/she has > >specifically designed the CSS so that different combinations of base and > >combining characters produce different effects. ... > >I expect case 1 is vanishingly rare. > > I agree. > > >Remember that these strings are > >canonically equivalent in Unicode - they say exactly the same thing, it's > >just as if the accent is changed. In fact, we may be doing people a favour > >here in terms of disabling security issues. On the other hand, we stand to > >clarify and alleviate problems for a lot of people who have done this by > mistake. > > I'm not sure I understand. If it's vanishingly rare, there can't > be a lot of people who have done this by mistake. The vanishingly rare case is where someone adds class names with differing codepoints on purpose. There may be plenty of others who have used differing codepoints by mistake, and those are the people who stand to gain from normalization. RI
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 18:41:25 UTC