Re: XSL WG Comments on Chairacter Model WD

Hello Mark, dear XSL WG,

We are currently in an editorial meeting working on the
Character Model and would greatly appreciate a timely
clarification of one of your comments (see below).


At 12:54 02/06/28 -0700, Mark Scardina wrote:

>Below are XSL WG compiled comments/issues on the I18N Character Model
>Working Draft located at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430.

>6) 3.5 Reference Processing Model
>" [S] Specifications MAY allow use of any character encoding which can
>be transcoded to Unicode for its text entities.
>   [S] Specifications MAY choose to disallow or deprecate some encodings
>and to make others mandatory. Independent of the actual encoding, the
>specified behavior MUST be the same as if the processing happened as
>follows:
>The encoding of any text entity received by the application implementing
>the specification MUST be determined and the text entity MUST be
>interpreted as a sequence of Unicode characters - this MUST be
>equivalent to transcoding the entity to some Unicode encoding form ,
>adjusting any character encoding label if necessary, and receiving it in
>that Unicode encoding form. All processing MUST take place on this
>sequence of Unicode characters. If text is output by the application,
>the sequence of Unicode characters MUST be encoded using an encoding
>chosen among those allowed by the specification. [S] If a specification
>is such that multiple text entities are involved (such as an XML
>document referring to external parsed entities), it MAY choose to allow
>these entities to be in different character encodings. In all cases, the
>Reference Processing Model MUST be applied to all entities."
>
>[XSL] It may be less confusing to have these requirements separated with
>a clarifying sentence, breaking these out under a clarifying context.
>Is this intent to forbid entity representation of non-Unicode
>characters?

Can you please clarify what you mean by 'entity representation of
non-Unicode characters' ? (ideally with (an) example(s))

Many thanks for your timely answer,     Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 11:16:34 UTC