On Dec 11, 4:51 pm, "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sébastien Boisgérault wrote:
> > Could anyone comment on the rationale behind
> > the current behavior ? Is it a performance issue,
> > the search for non-valid unicode code points being
> > too expensive ?
> the default serializer
Sébastien Boisgérault wrote:
> Could anyone comment on the rationale behind
> the current behavior ? Is it a performance issue,
> the search for non-valid unicode code points being
> too expensive ?
the default serializer doesn't do any validation or well-formedness checks at
all; it assumes
tha
