• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:38:55 +1000
• References: <20030603205736.GB23915@s...> <017001c32a5d$767e2710$4bc8a8c0@A...> <3EDDD6B5.E991F289@s...> <20030604112718.GG21985@c...> <3EDF0873.FAECBF33@s...> <20030605115359.GC17227@c...> <3EDF41AD.31CC7576@s...>

We had exactly this discussion a while back on XML-DEV.

Someone claimed that charmod was vague about producer and consumer. Others
of us then mentioned the definitions, and charmod's scope about being primarily concerned 
with public web data, etc.  

For people who don't want text normalization, why won't this cause problems, putting aside
the fringe requirements of ASCII-only users?   (Indeed, I was told it is the law in a certain 
country to normalize their text.)

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
• Next by Date: Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
• Next by thread: Re: XML 1.1 and Unicode normalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread