[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>,Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:12:11 -0800
• References: <200201102338.XAA06564@m...><005501c19a3e$a84b94e0$4bc8a8c0@A...><p04330102b866437552d2@[192.168.254.4]>

> >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. 

Same is true for XML 1.0 names:  since characters that would need
surrogates are disallowed, any surrogate in a name/nmtoken context
is malformed.  Adjacent chars don't matter.

Similarly, it is _never_ OK to have an unpaired (or incorrectly paired)
surrogate; that's explicitly disallowed in the XML 1.0 grammar.  If an
XML parser passes one of those through, it's an error ... and that's
normally handled before the XML parser sees such characters, in
the layer handling different character encodings.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: ANN: Gorille 0.3
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• 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