Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Eric Rahm wrote: > Limiting to modifying nsScanner might be an option, but probably not > changing all callers that use the nsAString interface. I guess we can just > UTF-16 => UTF-8 those and file a bunch of follow ups? Yeah. The main

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

Thanks Henri, I think we can find a middle ground so as to avoid a ton of scope creep but leave the door open to a better iterative solution. See notes inline. -e On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Henri Sivonen

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Our current interface is UTF-16, so that's my target for now. I think >> whatever cache-friendliness would be lost converting from UTF-16 -> UTF-8 -> >> UTF-16. > > I hope this can be reconsidered, because the

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

Am 24.05.17 um 09:34 schrieb Anne van Kesteren: On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: I was hoping to write a more thorough blog post about this proposal (I have some notes in a gist), but for now I've added comments inline. The main takeaway here is that I want

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Contrary to Henri, I think XML 1.0 edition 5 (which isn't "XML5") is > worth considering given > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501837. It's what Chrome > ships and our current implementation doesn't seem

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: > I was hoping to write a more thorough blog post about this proposal (I have > some notes in a gist), but for now I've added comments inline. The main > takeaway here is that I want to do a bare-bones replacement of just the >

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > It seems to me that attribute values would be the only case where a > conversion from UTF-8 to UTF-16 would be needed all the time, and that > conversion can be fast for ASCII, which is what attribute values > mostly

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Daniel Fath wrote: > So, if I understand this correctly - We'll first need to land this component > in Firefox, right? And if it proves itself fine, then formalize it. No, both the implementation and the spec would have to be pretty solid

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

I was hoping to write a more thorough blog post about this proposal (I have some notes in a gist [1]), but for now I've added comments inline. The main takeaway here is that I want to do a bare-bones replacement of just the parts of expat we currently use. It needs to support DTD entities, have a

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

Am 23.05.17 um 16:01 schrieb Daniel Fath: So, if I understand this correctly - We'll first need to land this component in Firefox, right? And if it proves itself fine, then formalize it. I was thinking of having resolutions for the issues that are currently warnings in red and multi-vendor

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

So, if I understand this correctly - We'll first need to land this component in Firefox, right? And if it proves itself fine, then formalize it. > I was thinking of having resolutions for the issues that are currently > warnings in red and multi-vendor buy-in. (Previously, Tab from Google > was

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Fath wrote: >> (If the outcome here is to do XML5, we should make sure the spec is >> polished enough at the WHATWG in order not to a unilateral thing in >> relative secret.) > > What does it mean to be polished enough at the

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

> (If the outcome here is to do XML5, we should make sure the spec is > polished enough at the WHATWG in order not to a unilateral thing in > relative secret.) What does it mean to be polished enough at the WHATWG? Also how far reaching should spec be? Include Namespaces? On Tue, May 23, 2017

Re: Scope of XML parser rewrite?

Figured out the email address of the XML5 editor / xml5ever developer, so adding to CC. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > In reference to: https://twitter.com/nnethercote/status/866792097101238272 > > Is the rewrite meant to replace expat only or also

Scope of XML parser rewrite?

In reference to: https://twitter.com/nnethercote/status/866792097101238272 Is the rewrite meant to replace expat only or also some of our old code on both above and below expat? Back in 2011, I wrote a plan for rewriting the code around expat without rewriting expat itself: