- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:36:02 -0700
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro > <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote: >> No, that was poor wording on my part, I keep using "locale" in the wrong context. I meant to have the API take a proper collation identifier. The identifier can be as specific as the caller wants it to be. The implementation could choose to not honor some specific detail if it can't handle it (to the extent that doing so is allowed by the specification of collation names), or fail because it considers that not handling a particular aspect of the collation identifier would severely deviate from the caller's expectations. > > I'm not sure I understand you. My personal opinion is that there > should be no undefined behavior here. If authors are allowed to pass > collation identifiers, the spec needs to say exactly how they're to be > interpreted, so the same identifier passed to two different browsers > will result in the same collation, i.e., the same strings need to sort > the same cross-browser. Having only binary collation is better than > having non-binary collations but not defining them, IMO. I definitely agree that we should do as best we can to define strict behavior. However I also note that if there is no reasonable spec that we can work off of, then I'm reluctant to wait indefinitely for that. However I absolutely think that once there is a spec to work off of, we should make that spec mandatory. That means that already now implementations should take whatever steps necessary in order to prepare for such a transition. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:36:59 UTC