Re: The XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation is published
John Cowan wrote: >> 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 ... > > ICU is, as always, the gold standard for this kind of thing. It has > both normalizing and normalization-checking algorithms. Well yeah, except for the ICU implementation is several times the size of your average XML processor, and its APIs are way harder to learn than for example SAX. I really understand the desire to clean up the normalization picture, but I think the cost is high and the nondeterministic behavior specified by 1.1 is a problem. We got a tremendous amount of static over the fact that the processors may be nondeterministically validating or non-validating, now that matrix has four slots. Having said that, looking back, the fact that XML is Guaranteed Not To Choke on properly i18nized text, makes it easy for engineers to Do The Right Thing and makes it really hard to ignore i18n, has turned out to be a huge selling point for XML to an extent that none of us could have predicted. So this may turn out to be cost-effective. Why doesn't 1.1 just say "Processors must validate at user option"? I.e. this is behavior that can be turned off. Then you know what's going to happen. -Tim
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format