Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...> > I am sure there will be (or are) generic libraries for that kind of > Unicode processing. To me this looks as if there is no proper > "separation of concerns", i.e. an XML processor should not concern > itself with the issue of normalization. Two comments 1) Character, encoding and normalization issues are simply too hard for programmers to do. XML provides the only real gateway where these things can be handled transparently, to shield the programmer from having to be aware of them, (to a great extent.) It is a spurious "separation of concerns" to rely on layers that don't exist, IYSWIM. 2) When I originally added normalization to opening XML files for a product, I found it slowed things down a lot (more than transcoding.) But I soon found that just by adding a small test to see if my data was all < U+300 (and therefore I didn't need to use the bulkier normalization routines) it becomes insignificant for most Western documents. So even though checking for normalization may add slight complexity to parsers, it may not have any significant performance impact, except on documents containing characters where normalization may be important. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
