- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:00:28 +0100
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:51:19 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Per the grammar you should be able to get a non-normalized tree and >> should not suddenly end up with, say, a tree normalized to NFC. It does >> not explicitly forbid it, but it does not forbid throwing a non >> namespace well-formedness error on Sundays either. > > OK. So in other words a parser that normalizes as it goes would not > technically be XML 1.0 compliant, yes? Yes. This combined with the fact that apparently no particular normalization form is canonical (both NFC and NFD being ok per Andrew) I'm not sure that changing anything here is desirable. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 15:01:32 UTC