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

On 4 May 2011 00:57, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> wrote:
> > The more I think about it, the more I want a user-specified comparison
> > function. Efficiency should not be an issue here - the engines should
> tweek
> > the JIT compiler to fix any efficiency issues. Just let the user pass a
> > closure (remember functions are first-class in JavaScript so this is not
> a
> > callback nor an event).
>
> I don't think we should do callbacks for the first version of
> javascript. It gets very messy since we can't rely on that the script
> function will be returning stable values.
>
> Additionally we'd either have to ask that the callback function is
> re-registered each time the database is opened, or somehow store a
> serialized copy of the callback function in the browser so that it's
> available the next time the database is opened. Neither of these
> things have been done in other APIs in the past, so if we hold up v1
> until we solve the challenges involved I think it will delay the
> release of a stable spec.
>
> So the choice here really is between only supporting some form of
> binary sorting, or supporting a built-in set of collations. Anything
> else will have to wait for version 2 in my opinion.
>
> / Jonas
>

Thats fine with me, providing the other issues around collation orders are
solved. If something like the unicode algorithm is used (and if not I would
want to be convinced there is a good reason for doing something different
than everyone else) there is the issue of  what orderings are provided by
everyone (maybe DUCET + current CLDR). Then there is how often the CLDR
should be updated. Should there be a live fetch / version check every time
the DB is started (seems like a sensible route to me, where possible),
otherwise the CLDR version could be specified by the standard and updated
with each version of the standard?


Cheers,
Keean.