W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2005

[Bug 1358] please think of a more elaborate mechanisms for choosing collations

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:24:19 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1DYV5X-00080O-E8@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1358





------- Additional Comments From jonathan.robie@datadirect.com  2005-05-18 20:24 -------
(In reply to comment #2)

First off, I *think* that this is all referring to the following comment, right?

   The current rules, which allow only one collation to be specified,
   raise an error if the collation is not supported, and use anyURIs
   to identify collations without any mechanism for giving anyURIs to
   well-known collations, are bound to lead to interoperability
   problems. Collations should not be the major source of
   interoperability problems. With the current design, even vendors
   who want to be interoperable have no chance of doing so. It will
   often be the case that e.g. a user wants just 'a French
   collation'. How can this be indicated?

> Suppose a user who wants to make a linguistic analysis of texts, and variation
> in collations - e.g. due to historic differences - is a crucial part of the
> analysis. Of course this is an unusal case, but my point is that such a user
> would not like to change the API or a parameter. The collation would be part of
> the query / analysis.

It's extremely unlikely, of course, that a standard collation for Greek would
take into account the historical variations in spelling over the last 7,000
years, and I can't figure out how the proposed solution fits your use case. I
think your user is better served by the ability to bind a collation URI to a
custom collation that takes itacization into account, a collation that may be
tailored to the specific kind of analysis intended.

You also say we should consider the case where "a user wants just 'a French
collation'. I would welcome a standard set of names for collations, if one
emerges, but this is way beyond the scope of the XML Query Working Group, and
might require years of effort, negotiating with representatives of the countries
involved. And it would also require significant domain expertise - which of the
potential French collations should be used for the person who wants just 'a
French collation'? We have the mechanism to refer to these collations by URI if
such a standard emerges.
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 20:27:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:38 GMT