- From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:40:51 +0200
- To: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>, Jonathan Rosenne <rosenne@netvision.net.il>, J.Larmouth@iti.salford.ac.uk, www-international@w3.org
Martin Bryan writes: > >The problem with this is that the standard sorting specifications are > >done on the whole characters, not the "decomposed" composite > >sequences. Also for that reason it would be advantegous to code > >the information in the 10646 characters so you have support for > >sorting. Building on the 10646 standard allows you to draw on > >all other ISO standardized work building on the standard, and thus > >to have an aligned set of standard conforming specifications. > > This doesn't work either as some languages require accented characters to be > placed at the end of the list. CEN TC304 are working on a set of sorting > rules for ISO 10646, which i18n should adopt as soon as ready for European > languages, but the sorting problems of CJK will need to be met by other > means as the same glyph can mean different things in different > contexts/languages. I am not sure why it does not work to follow the international standards in this area. I am talking also of SC22/WG20 who is working on sorting on the whole of 10646. I gave you a reference earlier. I would like some more information on the problems you mention: Which languages require accented characters placed at the end of the list? For CJK there are a number of ways to sort 10646, and WG20 will specify one. There may be more specified by national standardization bodies. Will this not be adequate for a number of purposes? SC2/WG2 will have sorting information available for all CJK characters. Keld
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 1996 08:43:48 UTC