W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: A character is in the eye of the beholder

From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:40:51 +0200
Message-Id: <199610221240.OAA21702@dkuug.dk>
To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>, Jonathan Rosenne <rosenne@netvision.net.il>, J.Larmouth@iti.salford.ac.uk, www-international@w3.org
Martin Bryan writes:

> >The problem with this is that the standard sorting specifications are
> >done on the whole characters, not the "decomposed" composite
> >sequences. Also for that reason it would be advantegous to code
> >the information in the 10646 characters so you have support for
> >sorting.  Building on the 10646 standard allows you to draw on
> >all other ISO standardized work building on the standard, and thus
> >to have an aligned set of standard conforming specifications.
> This doesn't work either as some languages require accented characters to be
> placed at the end of the list. CEN TC304 are working on a set of sorting
> rules for ISO 10646, which i18n should adopt as soon as ready for European
> languages, but the sorting problems of CJK will need to be met by other
> means as the same glyph can mean different things in different
> contexts/languages.

I am not sure why it does not work to follow the international
standards in this area. I am talking also of SC22/WG20 who is working
on sorting on the whole of 10646. I gave you a reference earlier.

I would like some more information on the problems you mention:

Which languages require accented characters placed at the end of the list?

For CJK there are a number of ways to sort 10646, and WG20 will specify 
one. There may be more specified by national standardization bodies.
Will this not be adequate for a number of purposes?
SC2/WG2 will have sorting information available for all CJK characters.

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 1996 08:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:16 UTC