Re: Sorting notation

I did not cite LDML, because it is far from being a stable standard for the
question of collation (I endorse the term "monster" used by someone else),
being adopted (and modified) mostly to document what ICU does (or does not
know how to do better).
As such this spec is still in a very alpha stage, and subject to various
experimentations.

2014-02-25 22:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Scherer <markus.icu_at_gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr>wrote:
>
>> 2014-02-24 20:38 GMT+01:00 Richard Wordingham <
>> richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com>:
>>
>> My understanding of the meaning of the notation is that:
>>>
>>> 1) ạ is to have the same number and type of collation elements as á
>>> currently has;
>>> 2) The last collation element of ạ that has a positive weight at level
>>> 2 is to be immediately before the corresponding collation element of
>>> á at the secondary level;
>>> 3) No collation element is to be ordered between these two collation
>>> elements; and
>>> 4) Their other collation elements are to be the same.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree with point your point (1).
>>
>
> Philippe, Richard is correct with what the specific example of
> &[before 2]á << ạ
>
> should yield according to
>
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr35/tr35-collation.html#Collation_Tailorings
>
> Your opinions are not based on the LDML collation tailoring spec, but you
> make it sound like they are.
>
> I suggest the two of you agree on which spec to discuss, or you clarify
> that what you are doing is comparing the LDML spec with some other spec (I
> don't know which one that is).
>
> markus
>

_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Tue Feb 25 2014 - 15:37:45 CST