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@[...].com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>