On Dec 18, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Jim Whitehead schrieb: >> One of the original goals of DASL is to be able to create queries >> that easily translate to SQL. If you have a DASL interpreter of >> this type (as is the case with Catacomb), then the collation order >> is, to a large extent, outside the control of the DASL >> implementation. The collation order is controlled by the >> underlying SQL engine. > > Right. And even worse, you may even not be able to find out what > the collation is. I agree this is undesirable. OTOH, short of exposing a string identifying the underlying database and version (a security risk), I'm not sure how we could reliably expose this. > >> I imagine that if the DASL specification indicated a collation >> order that was inconsistent with the underlying query engine use >> by an implementation, the implementation would just ignore the >> specification. > > Right. I'm currently tempted to close this issue as WONTFIX for the > initial revision, and add an appendix discussing the issues and > potential approaches. I'd love to hear a better solution, but I think what you are stating is realistic. - JimReceived on Monday, 18 December 2006 18:02:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:12:35 GMT