W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-collation@w3.org > September 2005

RE: comments on draft-newman-i18n-comparator-05.txt

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:39:54 -0700
To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
CC: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Philip Guenther <guenther+collation@sendmail.com>, public-ietf-collation@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050922083954649.00000003516@amalhotr-pc>

Could someone send me a pointer to the last draft.
I did not realize that the draft was progressing.

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ietf-collation-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ietf-collation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:13 AM
> To: Arnt Gulbrandsen
> Cc: Martin Duerst; Philip Guenther; public-ietf-collation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: comments on draft-newman-i18n-comparator-05.txt
> 
> 
> The goal and work so far is good. I'll need to read the 
> document over more carefully, but one quick point. The 
> specification should make very sure that some formal 
> properties are observed.
> 
>  > Since ordering is normally used to sort a list of items, 
> "error" is not a useful return value from the ordering 
> function. Strings with errors that prevent the sorting 
> algorithm from functioning correctly should sort to the end 
> of the list. Thus if the first string is invalid while the 
> second string is valid, the result will be "+1". If the 
> second string is invalid while the first string is valid, the 
> result will be "-1". If both strings are invalid, the result 
> SHOULD match the result from the "i;octet" collation.
> 
> This does not yet require that the order relation MUST be 
> transitive, which is an absolute requirement.
> 
> Similarly:
> 
> Equality MUST be an equivalence relationship (reflexive, 
> symmetric, and transitive).
> 
> Ordering MUST establish a total order (that is, < is 
> transitive and trichotomous), and must be consistent with the 
> Equality relationship.
> 
> Matching MUST be defined such that if there is a match, the 
> substring meets the equality criteria. Note: there are some 
> real gotchas in matching, see 
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Searching
> 
> 
> Also, I haven't looked it over in detail on this point, but 
> with reference to attributes, I'd point people to the CLDR 
> specification for the kinds of things that are needed.
> 
> http://unicode.org/cldr/data/docs/web/tr35.html#%3Ccollation%3E
> 
> Mark
> 
> Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> > 
> > Martin Duerst writes:
> > 
> >> I think this is great! This is the best way to get the 
> draft finally 
> >> moving on at greater speed. I happen to know the chair, 
> and I agree 
> >> with your description of her abilities.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, I'm somewhat worried that the we may 
> end up with a 
> >> draft that's perfect for IMAP, but doesn't work for other 
> >> protocols/formats/languages.
> > 
> > 
> > I'd be surprised. If you rephrase less strongly, then perhaps. Our 
> > needs aren't THAT different.
> > 
> >> Therefore, please make sure that all discussion is 
> (cross)posted to 
> >> the public-ietf-collation@w3.org list. This at least gives people 
> >> from other venues a chance to comment; if they miss that 
> chance, then 
> >> that's their fault.
> > 
> > 
> > Will try. And at least I'll mention every change loudly and clearly.
> > 
> > Arnt
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2005 15:40:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:54 GMT