W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

RE: [IndexedDB] Languages for collation

From: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:56:03 +0000
To: Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜) <jungshik@google.com>, "markdavis@google.com" <markdavis@google.com>
CC: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F753B2C401114141B426DB383C8885E05E891B49@TK5EX14MBXC128.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

From: Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜) [mailto:jungshik@google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:34 PM

>> As for the locale identifiers, my understanding is that Windows APIs (newer 'name-based' locale APIs) more or less follows BCP 47. 

Picking this back up from this August thread. I went around and asked Windows folks about this. Locale identifiers based on BCP 47 sound good.

On the other hand, we probably wouldn't do UCA. I heard various worries from folks that work in this space, including the fact that it seems it's still changing so it would be a moving target (which btw means that collisions could still happen) and that we don't support it in a number of places today. Given that feedback, I would rather leave this open and let implementations choose the algorithm for collation (still need to do language-sensitive collation, of course). Would that work?

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 06:58:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:11 UTC