- 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
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