Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 07:38:30AM -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> >No, not at all! XML 1.1 says that parsers should *check* normalization,
> >not that they should *perform* it. So a parser that sees an e followed
> >by a combining acute should report the lack of normalization to the
> >calling application.
> No, I still think there's an issue here, though maybe I don't have my
> finger on it yet. Even if the document isn't transformed into
> normalized form, the processor might still validate against the
> normalized form. Maybe the correct behavior just needs to be spelled
> out better.
Just to put some emphasis to what John Cowan already said, I'm afraid
of the cost of normalizing on-the-fly, the algorithms I could found
in the Unicode annexes were just scary (in term of complexity and memory
requirement) maybe there is simpler lean and cheap normalization
algorithms (I would like pointers ;-) but definitely that cost is better
done once at generation time. Apparently normalization checking is
slightly lighter and as said that check is optional c.f. 2.13 wording.
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
firstname.lastname@example.org | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/