[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
/ Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> was heard to say:
| At 2:55 PM -0500 2/19/04, Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|>- Michael's message raised an issue that we had, as far as I can tell,
|> simply failed to consider: Unicode normalization checking. The XML
|> 1.1 spec says "XML processors SHOULD provide a user option to verify
|> that the document being processed is in fully normalized form". We
|> propose that a feature be added to the XMLReaderFactory, perhaps
|> http://xml.org/sax/features/unicode-normalization-checking. If this
|> feature is enabled, the factory returns readers that perform Unicode
|> normalization checking. The EG felt that this feature was most
|> appropriate at the factory level.
|>
|
| Seems reasonable. This feature should be false by default, a true
| value should be optional, and if a problem is encountered the error()
| message in the ErrorHandler should be invoked.
That sounds fine to me.
| I could be wrong about that last point if anyone wants to argue this
| should be a fatal error or a warning instead. However, please do let's
| specify which of those three methods is called. I've had a devil of a
| time in the past with problems one parser considers fatal, the next
| considers only an error, and the third relegates to warning.
I18N might want to chime in here, but I think error() is appropriate.
| Also, we might want to standardize either en exception subtype or an
| exception message for normalization issues. I think we decided last
| year it was too late for most preexisting error messages, but we
| should be able to get out in front of this one.
Makes sense to me.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wink at small faults; for thou has
http://nwalsh.com/ | great ones.--Thomas Fuller (II)
PGP signature
|
