- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
Karl Waclawek scripsit: From cowan Wed Oct 16 09:53:39 2002 Return-Path: <xml-dev-return-15730-jcowan=reutershealth.com@lists.xml.org> Received: from mail2.reutershealth.com [10.65.117.14] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for cowan@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:53:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.reutershealth.com (mail.reutershealth.com [65.246.141.36]) by mail2.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06453 for <jcowan@mail2.reutershealth.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:05:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.oasis-open.org ([209.202.168.102]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA18965 for <jcowan@reutershealth.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15303 invoked by uid 60909); 16 Oct 2002 14:00:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xml-dev-help@lists.xml.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Post: <mailto:xml-dev@lists.xml.org> List-Help: <mailto:xml-dev-help@lists.xml.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org> Delivered-To: mailing list xml-dev@lists.xml.org Received: (qmail 15288 invoked by uid 0); 16 Oct 2002 14:00:42 -0000 Message-ID: <00ae01c2751b$18a66500$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k> From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@waclawek.net> To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org> References: <200210161346.JAA06190@mail2.reutershealth.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:51:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Subject: Re: [xml-dev] The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published X-UIDL: !,##!89]!!-N,"!k;@!! X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.11 > Karl Waclawek scripsit: > > > If Unicode allows strings to have different spellings, than this is a generic > > problem for all applications processing Unicode strings. So why add the extra > > complexity to an XML processor to check for normalization, so that an application > > that would normally treat Unicode strings in a standard way suddenly can do it > > differently, because the XML processor already takes care of part of it? > > It isn't really enough to take an XML document and just check normalization > as if it were a plain-text Unicode document. The various strings in > XML documents -- names, runs of character content, attribute values, etc. > need each to be checked separately. That can be done by the application when it receives the output from the XML processor. And even then I would assume that it is only really necessary to check normalization when it can affect the result of operations performed on the data. Now, this would change if normalization would also affect the internal behaviour of the XML processor, but I don't think this is the case, or am I mistaken? Karl ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "If he has seen farther than others, it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves." --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted)
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 18:22:52 UTC