[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| - clearly, documents that are not normalized are still well-formed,
| so if the application is to have any guarantees here the processor
| must do normalization before passing on the information,
* John Cowan
|
| Not so. A processor in normalization-check mode will report
| non-normalized input, so the application may make up its mind
| whether or not to accept it.
Uh, yes. Obviously what I wrote makes no sense.
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Wouldn't it be far better if the application could be certain that
| an XML 1.1 processor would provide normalized character data and to
| ignore the whole issue of how the document was encoded? After all,
| isn't the whole purpose of *having* XML parsers to insulate
| applications from worries about the lexical details of documents?
* John Cowan
|
| The point is that normalization is expensive, and it may be too
| expensive to do at all in small systems. Therefore, the W3C's
| choice (expressed in the Character Model) is to have senders
| normalize, and receivers check for normalization. In this way
| documents are normalized once at creation (or publication) time,
| rather than every time a document is received; this conserves
| net-wide cycles, since checking is cheaper than normalizing.
I can't say I like this, but at least I can see that there is
reasoning behind it and that the reasoning makes sense.
Thanks for clearing this up!
--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
|
