W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: [IndexedDB] Spec changes for international language support

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:52:58 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=a12=BAicNfBazGFfeWzzD9==hNdm7k3kudNTx@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Jungshik Shin <jshin@chromium.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
See my proposal in another thread. The basic idea is to copy BDB. Have a
primary index that is based on an integer, something primitive and fast.
Allow secondary indexes which use a callback to generate a binary index key.
IDB shifts the complexity out into a library. Common use cases can be
provided (a hash of all fields in the object, internationalised
bidirectional lexicographic etc...), but the user is free to write their own
for less usual cases (for example indexing by the last word in a name string
to order by surname).


On 18 March 2011 02:19, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> 2011/3/17 Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>:
> >
> > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:11 PM
> >
> >>> All in all, is there anything preventing adding the API Pablo suggests
> >>> in this thread to the IndexedDB spec drafts?
> >
> > I wanted to propose a couple of specific tweaks to the initial proposal
> and then unless I hear pushback start editing this into the spec.
> >
> > From reading the details on this thread I'm starting to realize that
> per-database collations won't do it. What did it for me was the example that
> has a fuzzier matching mode (case/accent insensitive). This is exactly the
> kind of index I would want to sort people's names in my address book, but
> most likely not the index I'll want to use for my primary key.
> >
> > Refactoring the API to accommodate for this would mean to move the
> setCollation() method and the collation property to the object store and
> index objects. If we were willing to live without the ability to change them
> we could take collation as one of the optional parameters to
> createObjectStore()/createIndex() and reduce a bit of surface area...
> Unfortunately I think you bring up good use cases for
> per-objectStore/index collations. It's definitely tempting to just add
> it as a optional parameter to createObjectStore/createIndex. The
> downside is obviously pushing more complexity onto web developers.
> Complexity which will be duplicated across sites.
> However there is another problem to consider here. Can switching
> collation on a objectStore or a unique index can affect its validity?
> I.e. if you switch from a case sensitive to a case insensitive
> collation, does that mean that if you have two entries with the
> primary keys "Sweden" and "sweden" they collide and thus the change of
> collation must result in an error (or aborted transaction)?
> I do seem to recall that there are ways to do at least case
> sensitivity such that you generally don't take case into account when
> sorting, unless two entries are exactly the same, in which case you do
> look at casing to differentiate them. However I don't really know a
> whole lot about this and so defer to people that know
> internationalization better.
> > I don't have a strong preference there. In any case both would use BCP47
> names as discussed in this thread (as Jonas pointed out, implementations can
> also do their thing as long as they don't interfere with BCP47).
> >
> > Another piece of feedback I heard consistently as I discussed this with
> various folks at Microsoft is the need to be able to pick up what the UA
> would consider the collation that's most appropriate for the user
> environment (derived from settings, page language or whatever). We could
> support this by introducing a special value that  you can pass to
> setCollation that indicates "pick whatever is the right for the
> environment's language right now". Given that there is no other way for
> people to discover the user preference on this, I think this is pretty
> important.
> I would be fine with this as long as it's a explicit opt-in. There is
> definitely a risk that people will do this and then only do testing in
> one language, but it seems to me like a useful use case to support,
> and I don't see a way of supporting this while completely avoiding the
> risk of internationalization bugs.
> / Jonas
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 08:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:30 UTC