- From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:08:56 -0800
- To: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@exemplary.net>, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org>
So what you're saying, which is what I understood from before, is that if we sort based on the character domain, then the result should be the same regardless of encoding. Martin, do you agree? Thanks, John Boyer Software Development Manager PureEdge Solutions, Inc. (formerly UWI.Com) jboyer@PureEdge.com -----Original Message----- From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Christopher R. Maden Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 1:08 AM To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG; w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Xpath transform changes and questions [Martin Dürst] >At 00/03/17 12:47 -0800, John Boyer wrote: >iii) If everything else checks out, we can get rid of exact order and just >>use lex order provided that lex ordering in UTF-16 results in the same order >>as lex ordering in UTF-8 (which is Christopher Maden's claim). > >This is not true. Surrogate pairs are the counterexample. >And of course it is not true for any other character encoding, >except in a very limited sense for iso-8859-1 and us-ascii. I was referring to ordering on characters, not bytes. It should be obvious that bytewise sorting on a two-byte and a variable-byte encoding will be different. -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Yomu (formerly Exemplary Technologies) One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2000 12:07:08 UTC