W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Implementation or normalization

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:00:11 -0400
To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
Cc: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030604110011.GD21985@ccil.org>

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> Personally, I believe that normalization-checking should be an optionally SAX feature
> of XML processors: they may or may not provide it, and it may be normalization-checking
> of the raw input stream or after parsing.

It *is* an optional feature, but normalizing the raw input stream is not
enough.

> Unicode Normalization will apparantly only stabilize for Unicode 4
> (according to Adobe's Ken Lunde, who is the God of CJKV information
> processing.)  

It was already stable for Unicode 3.  Can you point me to where he says
this, with reasons?

> So I suggest that normalization is something that the XML Core WG might like
> to echo St Augustine and say "Make me normalized, but not yet".  In other
> words, treat normalization-checking as something that should be implemented
> as soon as convenient.  

The trouble is that we can't put something into a Rec, under the current
W3C rules, if there are no implementations or only one.  (The IETF has
long used this rule, and I consider it a Good Thing.)

-- 
A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want         John Cowan
to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a rabbi who lets them do it                 jcowan@reutershealth.com
isn't a man.    --Jewish saying                 http://www.reutershealth.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 07:00:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:13:20 UTC