W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [IndexedDB] Closing on bug 9903 (collations)

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:19:27 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=bhRy0HPDv2fAZ+ccdX3zsAcPFmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
> <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2 and agree that for now we'll just do binary collation everywhere or b) the last form of the proposal sent around: extra "collation" argument (following BCP47 plus whatever the UA wants to allow) in createObjectStore/createIndex, plus a collation property to interrogate it; no way to change the collation of a store/index once created.
>> Given that this turned out to be a more elaborate topic than I had originally expected and that it doesn't seem to have a lot of traction right now, my preference would be to postpone to v2. Thoughts? Once we make a call I'll make sure the spec reflects it.
> I'd be fine with postponing it. However I don't think that the counter
> proposals that we've received will work, so I don't think that there
> is a reason to postpone.
> / Jonas

As long as we have a binary mode I am happy. If it is to support other
collations, then all browsers must support the same set of options.
The question then becomes what set of collation modes to standardise
on? Allowing non standard collations will result in apps that will
only run correctly on one browser, and that does not seem a good idea
to me.

Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 19:19:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:19 UTC