- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:17:22 +0100
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:53:39 +0100, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Ian wrote: >> My understanding is that doing this would introduce an unacceptable >> performance penalty for implementations. > > So, I'm perplexed. > > All the browsers I'm familiar with (I haven't installed Chrome yet) > support XML+XSLT via the xml-stylesheet processing instruction. > > So they all have case-preserving tokenizers whose performance is > acceptable for the people who serve and read XML+XSLT. > > Who then has ruled that a case-preserving tokenizer "imposes an > unacceptable performance penalty", and on the basis of what evidence? Henri elaborates that in the very next e-mail of that thread (and has elaborated on it in the past as well): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/0240.html (Second instance of "Indeed" has the details.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 18:18:33 UTC