- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:39:54 -0700
- To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
- CC: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Philip Guenther <guenther+collation@sendmail.com>, public-ietf-collation@w3.org
Could someone send me a pointer to the last draft. I did not realize that the draft was progressing. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ietf-collation-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ietf-collation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:13 AM > To: Arnt Gulbrandsen > Cc: Martin Duerst; Philip Guenther; public-ietf-collation@w3.org > Subject: Re: comments on draft-newman-i18n-comparator-05.txt > > > The goal and work so far is good. I'll need to read the > document over more carefully, but one quick point. The > specification should make very sure that some formal > properties are observed. > > > Since ordering is normally used to sort a list of items, > "error" is not a useful return value from the ordering > function. Strings with errors that prevent the sorting > algorithm from functioning correctly should sort to the end > of the list. Thus if the first string is invalid while the > second string is valid, the result will be "+1". If the > second string is invalid while the first string is valid, the > result will be "-1". If both strings are invalid, the result > SHOULD match the result from the "i;octet" collation. > > This does not yet require that the order relation MUST be > transitive, which is an absolute requirement. > > Similarly: > > Equality MUST be an equivalence relationship (reflexive, > symmetric, and transitive). > > Ordering MUST establish a total order (that is, < is > transitive and trichotomous), and must be consistent with the > Equality relationship. > > Matching MUST be defined such that if there is a match, the > substring meets the equality criteria. Note: there are some > real gotchas in matching, see > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Searching > > > Also, I haven't looked it over in detail on this point, but > with reference to attributes, I'd point people to the CLDR > specification for the kinds of things that are needed. > > http://unicode.org/cldr/data/docs/web/tr35.html#%3Ccollation%3E > > Mark > > Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > > > Martin Duerst writes: > > > >> I think this is great! This is the best way to get the > draft finally > >> moving on at greater speed. I happen to know the chair, > and I agree > >> with your description of her abilities. > >> > >> On the other hand, I'm somewhat worried that the we may > end up with a > >> draft that's perfect for IMAP, but doesn't work for other > >> protocols/formats/languages. > > > > > > I'd be surprised. If you rephrase less strongly, then perhaps. Our > > needs aren't THAT different. > > > >> Therefore, please make sure that all discussion is > (cross)posted to > >> the public-ietf-collation@w3.org list. This at least gives people > >> from other venues a chance to comment; if they miss that > chance, then > >> that's their fault. > > > > > > Will try. And at least I'll mention every change loudly and clearly. > > > > Arnt > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2005 15:40:49 UTC