W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Unicode Normalization

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:09:40 +0100
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uor62exb64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:03:41 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I don't really care whether it's a bad idea or not, it would a bug in  
>> our software if we normalized on input unless XML was somehow changed.
>
> There's a related question here, somewhat less theoretical than what  
> happens with the textnodes in XML.  If I have an XML open tag in NFC and  
> the close tag in NFD, equal after normalization, is that a mismatched  
> tag per XML?

Per the XML grammar, yes. (As far as I can tell XML is Unicode  
Normalization agnostic. It merely recommends authors to do a certain  
thing. We can certainly recommend authors to do a certain thing in HTML  
and CSS too...)


>> And I'll try to make my other point a bit more explicit, I do not think  
>> that www-style is the appropriate venue for this discussion. If we  
>> cannot do normalization on XML or HTML, doing normalization (say NFC)  
>> on CSS would make it not work with certain XML documents that e.g. use  
>> NFD. (Doing the normalization during comparison is not really going to  
>> fly I think.)
>
> That's pretty much my opinion too.
>
>> If changes are required here we need to change CSS, but also HTML and  
>> XML. (And maybe ECMAScript; I do not know the details.)
>
> If you want |foo.className == "lalala"| comparisons to work in script,  
> then yes.

Yeah, upon reading the specification it seems that ECMAScript "expects"  
source code to be normalized according to NFC, but does not care if that  
is not the case. (I.e., the same as XML as far as I can tell.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 15:10:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 February 2009 15:10:50 GMT