- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:52:13 +0200
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 5, 2009, at 22:55, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Henri is opposed to it due to the complexity > of guaranteeing that combining characters will be normalized in the > face of document.write(), etc., similar to the current issues faced in > normalizing CRLF. I'm opposed to working around the defects of text input methods when it comes to computer language identifiers whose primary characteristic is easy equality comparison--not being a vehicle of literary expression--in performance-sensitive consuming software (in the string interning function in particular) and the associated implementation and QA complexity and interop discontinuity. > Of course, this can be partially handled by simply specifying that UAs > MAY normalize, but authors must not depend on such normalization > happening. That would be even worse than a MUST in any direction. > Anne believes that early/eager/parser normalization may violate XML > 1.0 (though this point was argued). It should be objectively true that XML 1.0 processors must compare Name tokens code point by code point by design. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 09:58:17 UTC