Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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 -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ veillard@r... | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
