From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 22:53:17 CST
Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
> The problem will of course come when new UCD data is fed into an old
> normaliser. You have made much in the past of the need not to change
> the normalisation algorithm, not to add new classes of exceptions etc
> so that programs don't have to be rewritten for each new version, only
> the data needs to be updated. The sort of outcome I might well expect
> to see from this is a normaliser emitting surrogate pairs in UTF-8 or
> UTF-32.
You'd better not see surrogate pairs in UTF-8 or UTF-32. We've only had
10 years or so to get that right.
> Well, however much I say "shame on the programmer" who wrote programs
> which allowed all those nasty viruses and worms of a couple of years
> ago to spread (I don't mean the virus etc programmer, but the mail
> client etc programmer), that doesn't change the fact that that they
> cost various people millions of dollars.
I'm one of those programmers being alluded to, and I'm here to tell you
that if I write normalization (or other) code that causes things to blow
up or exposes security holes, then shame on me.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 22:54:31 CST