Re: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)

From: Dean Snyder (
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 07:32:34 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)"

    Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 10:03 PM on Thursday, May 13, 2004:

    > wrote:
    >>Dean A. Snyder asks,
    >>>Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
    >>>when what we do now works very well?
    >>Please, one thing to remember about default collation is that
    >>it's default. It's only there when no other instructions exist.
    > From my understanding of the situation, it is generally best to expect
    >that the default collation will provide a sort that is just barely
    >tolerable. It's only there as a fallback, to prevent utter catastrophe;
    >if you want sorting actually to work properly, you need a tailored one.
    >Since the requirements for sorting are so varied, no default will
    >satisfy everyone, so the default just has to do its best to avoid
    >completely screwing up--barely.
    >That right?

    It means custom software or templates will have to be written if you want
    different behavior than the default.

    Try getting Google to implement your collation algorithms. Try getting
    different operating systems to agree on implementing the same collation
    algorithms. The same goes for all the database engines. These are the
    sorts of things you're up against if you want to avoid implementing your
    collation stuff separately on every piece of proprietary, private software.


    Dean A. Snyder

    Assistant Research Scholar
    Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
    Computer Science Department
    Whiting School of Engineering
    218C New Engineering Building
    3400 North Charles Street
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

    office: 410 516-6850
    cell: 717 817-4897

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 14 2004 - 07:32:19 CDT