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

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

From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:37:58 +0000
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F108E2F6BA743C4696146F0B7111C261256326@TK5EX14MBXC245.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: simetrical@gmail.com [mailto:simetrical@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aryeh Gregor
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:49 PM

>> 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 thought BCP47 allowed implementations to drop subtags if needed. I just re-read the spec and it seems that it only allows to do that in constrained cases where you can't fit the whole name in your buffer (which wouldn't apply to the context discussed here). My first instinct is that this is quite a bit to guarantee (full consistency in collation), but it seems that that's what the spec is shooting for. 

>> > Given the amount of debate on this, could we at least agree that we can do binary for v1? We can then have an open item for v2 on taking collation names and sort according to UCA or taking callbacks and such.
>> I'm okay with supporting only binary to start with.

Great. I'll still wait a bit to see what other folks think, and then update the bug one way or the other.


Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:32 UTC