W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [IndexedDB] Closing on bug 9903 (collations)

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:19:12 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikhKqsJxJLTtfKTPUNwh+Co8BMBzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
function. Efficiency should not be an issue here - the engines should tweek
the JIT compiler to fix any efficiency issues. Just let the user pass a
closure (remember functions are first-class in JavaScript so this is not a
callback nor an event).


On 2 May 2011 19:57, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
> > As long as we have a binary mode I am happy.
> Something I didn't think to mention: what exactly is "binary mode" for
> DOMStrings?  I guess it means you encode as big-endian UTF-16, then
> sort bytewise?  This is kind of evil, but it matches what sort() does,
> so I guess it should be the required behavior.  (It's kind of evil
> because it doesn't match code-point order, unlike if you encoded as
> UTF-8.  E.g., U+10000 is encoded as 0xd800dc00 and U+E000 is 0xe000,
> so U+E000 sorts after U+10000.)
> Perhaps this should be spelled out more clearly in the spec.
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 07:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:31 UTC