- From: XQuery <xquery@attbi.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:45:08 -0500 (EST)
- To: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>, <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <mrys@microsoft.com>
Mostly editorial comments on the F&O Nov 15 draft (these also still apply to the internal Dec 10 draft; section numbers refer to the Dec 10 draft for your convenience). - The link on the internal group page to the latest internal F&O draft is wrong (points to the July 15 draft instead of the Dec 10 draft). - Don't use "codepoint", use "code point". Both the W3C Character Model and the Unicode Consortium use "code point" in all their docs (as far as I can tell). [Also, codepoint gets a red squiggle, and I refuse to add it to my spellchecker's dictionary :-)] - 6.3: The "Unicode codepoint collation" is named but not defined anywhere. Confusingly, it's introduced around the same time as the Unicode Collation Algorithm (which is unused by XQuery). - 6.3.1: The definition of compare() explains what happens when one string differs in length from the other; but this should be up to the collation. - 6.4.6, 6.4.7, 6.4.14: Surrogate pairs are irrelevant. You've already defined things in terms of code points -- so the underlying bytes (and therefore, surrogate pairs) never come into play. - 9.2.1, 10.2.1, 12.1.1: should all compare according to the context collation - 6.3, etc.: As Jeni Tennison already brought up [1], URIs as collation names are unusual (and not even followed by the draft itself). Although the idea has merit for WS-I, almost every collation implementation I can find uses RFC 1766 (locale names like en-US and fr-FR). Perhaps some implementations will invent a URI syntax for their collations, but I expect most Java and .NET implementations will rely on java.text.RuleBasedCollation and System.Globalization.CultureInfo, both of which are based on RFC 1766. If you're going to insist on URIs, then at least make the draft examples consistent with that. - Speaking of Jeni's prior feedback, I'd like to echo the request for title-case(). Aside from newspapers and poems, I think customers really want it -- I see a ton of Java and .NET questions about title case [2, 3]. I think I said this yesterday, but it seems arbitrary omit title-case when you're already implementing most of the rest of the Unicode Case Mapping. (And it shouldn't be a big implementation burden -- both Java and .NET provide it in their class library/frameworks.) Cheers, Michael Brundage xquery@attbi.com [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2002May/0052.html [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22title+case%22+Java+%22how+do%22 [3] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22title+case%22+NET+%22how+do%22
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 22:24:29 UTC