- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:13:01 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "Andrew Sledd" <Andrew.Sledd@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Monday, June 13, 2005, 9:56:00 PM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * Chris Lilley wrote: >>BH> Yes. And the algorithm defined in RFC 3987 produces different >>BH> results than those defined in XML 1.0, XML Schema 1.0, SVG 1.1, HTML >>BH> 4.01, XML Catalogs, XInclude, XPointer, etc. which produce >>BH> equivalent results. >> >>Because international DNS was not included in the copy paste versions. BH> Well, the difference I am referring to is the incompatibility BH> with the reference character processing model Ah! Thanks for being more specific; the part that I thought you were alluding to and what in fact concerns you turns out to be quite different. BH> as discussed in BH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005May/0024 BH> This difference was part of the drafts since draft-masinter- BH> url-i18n-02 (published 1998) though the cases in which it BH> applies as well as the requirement levels changed over time. Okay. I see from the link you provided that you have been discussing this on a thread crossposted to www-style@w3.org and public-i18n-core@w3.org - looking at the June archives the thread seems to have died. Accordingly I have copied public-i18n-core@w3.org on this reply, to get further guidance. Okay, so it comes down to character normalization when non-Unicode encodings are used and the character data has not been normalized. I can see that this is potentially an issue in CSS, but for XML where the only two encodings guaranteed to work across XML parsers are UTF-8 and UTF-16, and where use of any other (non codepoint subset - declaring UTF-8 and then using US-ASCII is not relevant here) encoding has always required declaration of the encoding, this seems to be less of a problem. If I misunderstand, perhaps you could provide a well-formed SVG example derived from one of your CSS examples that illustrates the problem? BH> The other differences are quite unimportant, especially since BH> RFC 3986 takes some of these into account. Yes it does, but thanks again for the clarification. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 22:13:08 UTC