Re: Compliant Tailoring of Normalisation for the Unicode Collation Algorithm

From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 14:28:21 -0700

There is an action item from the UTC and CLDR committees to clarify the
meanings of the setting; they are supposed to allow some degree of
variation.

------------------------------
Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Richard Wordingham <
richard.wordingham_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:51:34 -0700
> Markus Scherer <markus.icu_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing that requires us to get correct results *without
> > normalization* for all FCD strings or any other particular input
> > conditions (except NFD input).
>
> So long as you don't claim conformance to the CLDR collation
> definitions. If you do, a lot depends on how one interprets the
> definition of normalisation settings given in UTS#35 'Unicode Locale
> Data Markup Language' Revision 25 (Version 21.0.1) Section 5.1.4.3:
>
> "If on, then the normal [UCA] algorithm is used. If off, then all
> strings that are in [FCD] will sort correctly, but others will not
> necessarily sort correctly. So should only be set off if the the
> strings to be compared are in FCD."
>
> This is stronger than the corresponding description in the UCA. I
> assume that the 'will' is there because it is what a user is allowed to
> expect - so long as he ignores the dictum that 'all software has bugs'.
>
> Richard.
>
>
Received on Fri May 18 2012 - 16:30:20 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 18 2012 - 16:30:20 CDT