Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk scripsit:

> String equality in a programming language should not treat composed
> and decomposed forms as equal. Not this level of abstraction.

Well, that assumes that there's a special "string equality" predicate, as
distinct from just having various predicates that DWIM.  In a Unicode Lisp
implementation, e.g., equal might be char-by-char equality and equalp might not.

> They are supposed to be equivalent when they are actual characters.
> What if they are numeric character references? Should "<&#824;"
> (7 characters) represent a valid plain-text character or be a broken
> opening tag?

It's a broken opening tag.

> Note that if it's a valid plain-text character, it's impossible
> to represent isolated combining code points in XML, 

It's problematic to represent the *specific* combining code point
when it appears immediately after a tag.

-- 
Don't be so humble.  You're not that great.             John Cowan
        --Golda Meir                                    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to