• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:00:05 -0500
• In-reply-to: <268001c19bad$cd8864c0$6800000a@b...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <200201102338.XAA06564@m...> <p04330102b866437552d2@[192.168.254.4]> <268001c19bad$cd8864c0$6800000a@b...>

On Saturday 12 January 2002 04:12 pm, David Brownell wrote:
> > >And also, do surrogate pairs really introduce any issues that
> > >are not already present in combining character sequences?
> >
> > Yes, I think they do. In particular for this thread, XML 1.0 names
> > (and probably XML 1.1 names) can be checked for well-formedness
> > and validity without worrying about combining characters.

This is more an issue with processing UTF-16. If you always work at 
the scalar for validation the issue goes away. This is obvious, but 
it's important to blur the character vs. encoding issue.

As characters, surrogate pairs have fewer issues than combining 
sequences for display (or certainly no extra issues).



 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread