W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-collation@w3.org > August 2004

RE: Created tracking/issues page for draft-newman-i18n-comparator

From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:11:08 +0100
To: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@w3.org>, <public-ietf-collation@w3.org>
Cc: "'Chris Newman'" <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <E1BzYHF-0006Qg-9i@frink.w3.org>

Some comments on the draft:

(a) I think we should be defining a function on character strings, not on
octet strings. The encoding of the strings is a matter for the protocol to
negotiate, and the protocol should be out of scope for this document. (By
"character string", I mean a list of integers being the Unicode codepoints).

(b) Because the protocol is out of scope, discussions of how to search for a
collation using wildcards are also out of scope.

(c) Typically a collation is the combination of a basic algorithm (such as
UCA) and a set of parameters (such as language, collation strength). This
doesn't fit well into a single-level naming structure. It would be better to
identify a collation by means of a collation algorithm name supplemented by
a set of keyword/value pairs. A registered collation would define the
keywords that are recognized and the allowed values for each keyword.

(d) The document is trying both to describe the registry and to give it some
initial content. These two things should be separated.

(e) The description of a registry needs to include some process definitions
for how the registry is maintained.

(f) The definition of the term "collation" should include some invariants
that all collations must satisfy: for example, if compare(A,B)=-1, then
compare(B,A)=+1.

(g) The document needs to be clear whether the description of a collation in
the registry needs to be descriptive or prescriptive. Can I register a
collation without specifying precise details of the algorithm that it uses
(that is, sufficient information to allow a third party to implement the
collation, with predictable and repeatable results)? There are potential IPR
issues here.

Michael Kay


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ietf-collation-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ietf-collation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Martin Duerst
> Sent: 24 August 2004 10:14
> To: public-ietf-collation@w3.org
> Cc: Chris Newman
> Subject: Created tracking/issues page for draft-newman-i18n-comparator
> 
> 
> At the IETF in San Diego, Chris has said that he would not have much
> time to devote to draft-newman-i18n-comparator, but that I 
> could become
> an additional editor. To move things forward, I have created 
> a tracking/
> issues page at http://www.w3.org/2004/08/ietf-collation.
> 
> It is modeled after http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit,
> which has proved to be quite convenient, both for me to keep updated
> and for the work to move ahead.
> 
> I have taken the issues in the issues list in
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newman-i18n-comparat
> or-02.txt
> and have entered them into the table on that page.
> 
> Any comments on any of these issues, or on the draft itself,
> is wellcome (in other words, the discussion on this mailing list
> is now open).
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 10:11:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:40 UTC