- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:46:31 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5251 ------- Comment #7 from mike@saxonica.com 2008-02-13 18:46 ------- >Are you proposing that we add something explicit about being on a collation unit boundary? I would certainly like to tie the F+O reference to "[minimal] match" more closely to the terminology of the UCA rules. The UCA rules are introduced by "Suppose there is a collation C, a pattern string P and a target string Q, and a boundary condition B." So I think we should probably say something like the following (taking contains() as our example): Returns true if and only if there is a minimal match, as defined in [UCA], under the following conditions: * The pattern string P is $arg2 * The target string Q is $arg1 * The collation C is $collation if specified, or the default collation otherwise * The boundary condition B is true between two characters that belong to different collation units, and is false between two characters that belong to the same collation unit. This is essentially what the current F+O spec is trying to say when it talks about a "sequence of collation units" matching: it just doesn't use the UCA terminology.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 18:46:40 UTC