On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 19:21, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote:
> I believe this is a mischaracterization of my argument. My argument is
> "everything will have a way to get at the underlying bytes, not
> everything will have them pre-converted into code points".
I think this, in particular, is not correct.
The counter-argument - that everything can obtain a sequence of codepoints,
but might not be able to get at a sequence of octets - is more accurate.
In particular, I think anything based on Python would only receive text
nodes as `str` objects, which are codepoint-based, and the {de|en}coding to
UTF-8 is part and parcel of the XML [de]serialization.
If we're counting codepoints and we only have the UTF-8, though, this
should be fairly easy without formal decoding, assuming we do not require
normalization.
> Also "this
> gives us the option to do certain optimizations on systems that support
> them, but using code points doesn't so we should do the thing that is
> the most flexible".
>
Oh, I agree with this, as a broad principle. But I don't think it's viable
in this case.
>
> —Sam
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020, at 19:09, Tedd Sterr wrote:
> > Regardless, your argument is still "bytes is more convenient for me,
> > so everyone else should do what's best for me." I don't think that's a
> > good argument.
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
