- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:10:17 +0900
- To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, IMAP Extensions WG <ietf-imapext@imc.org>, public-ietf-collation@w3c.org
At 23:18 06/02/02, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >Hi, > >the draft is lying silently in the internet-draft editor queue. However, I would appreciate reviews, speedily if possible. If you have the time and it isn't yet in your internet-drafts mirror, I can send a copy. > >There are a few changes. > >The basic and biggest change is that collation is defined in terms of octet strings, with explicit notes that implementations may choose to use character strings, and notes that in that case, e.g. i;octet may not be possible to implement. Various minor changes changes result. This may work out, or it may not work out. I'll check this carefully, but don't have any time this (and probably next) week, sorry. The main problem is that octet-based collations (except possibly for i;octet) need an encoding, but character-based collations obviously don't. So if I have some French collation defined over characters, and some French collation defined over iso-8859-1, how will they be distinguished? How can we make sure registrations can be as compact and easy as possible? Regards, Martin. >There are also more definitions and requirements. For example, equality has to be implemented if ordering is, and if ordering returns equal, equality must return true. That sort of thing. > >I am unhappy with one thing: i;octet is still used a little as a last resort to resolve equality/order, which brings it very close to mandatory-to-implement. This doesn't seem necessary from an architectural point of view. I just haven't found a solution I really like. > >Arnt >
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 10:43:30 UTC