In view of the schedule, I suggest that we make your first, minimal change right now, and plan to correct it along one of the other lines in the next edition.
#1 is much weaker than we want, so we should correct it, but we can do that in edition 2. Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Norbert Lindenberg < ecmascr...@norbertlindenberg.com> wrote: > Seeing that the final draft of the spec is due today, here's a breakdown > of possible changes around normalization in Collator: > > 1) Change the description of Intl.Collator.prototype.compare to say: "The > method is required to return 0 when comparing Strings that are considered > canonically equivalent by the Unicode standard, unless collator has a > [[normalization]] internal property whose value is false." > > This is the smallest possible change to the spec that's needed to make its > canonical equivalence and normalization requirements consistent, and I've > made it. > > 2) Require support for the normalization property and the kk key. > > The way I phrased the spec in 1), this isn't necessary anymore, and we can > make this change in the second edition if needed. > > 3) Add "locale" to the set of acceptable input values for the > normalization property of options. Implementations that support the > normalization property would use the selected locale's default for the "kk" > key. The normalization property of the object returned by resolvedOptions > remains a boolean. > > This change could be made today or in the second edition. If we make it in > the second edition, implementations of the first edition would interpret > "locale" as true because "locale" is truthy. The conformance clause does > not allow implementations to add support for this value on their own. > > 4) Add "locale" to the set of acceptable values of the kk key of BCP 47. > The Internationalization API would use this, if the normalization property > of options is undefined, to map to the appropriate boolean value. > > This can't happen today, and I'm not sure it's really required. Turning > off normalization is primarily an optimization and so should be under > application control. > > Comments? > > Norbert > > > On Sep 1, 2012, at 16:19 , Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > > > > Support for the normalization property in options and the kk key would > become mandatory. > > > > The options that ICU offers are to observe full canonical equivalence: > > • For all locales > > • kk=true > > • For key locales (where it is necessary); otherwise partial (FCD) > > • kk=<not present> > > • For no locales; always partial (FCD) > > • kk=false > > Your proposal looks reasonable, except I'm not sure how someone would > use the kk value to get #2. > > > > Mark > > > > — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene — > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Norbert Lindenberg < > ecmascr...@norbertlindenberg.com> wrote: > > I think #2 is far more common for ECMAScript - typical use would be to > re-sort a list of a few dozen or at most a few hundred entries and then > redisplay that list. #1 might become more common though as JavaScript use > on the server progresses. > > > > So here's an alternative spec approach: > > > > - Leave the specification of String.prototype.localeCompare as is. That > is, if it's not based on Collator, canonical equivalence -> 0 is required. > > > > - For Collator.prototype.compare, require that canonical equivalence -> > 0 unless the client explicitly turns off normalization (i.e., normalization > is on by default, independent of locale). Support for the normalization > property in options and the kk key would become mandatory. > > > > Norbert > > > > > > On Aug 31, 2012, at 10:12 , Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > > > > > I think we could go either way. It depends on the usage mode. > > > • The case where performance is crucial is where you are > comparing gazillions of strings, such as records in a database. > > > • If the number of strings to be compared is relatively small, > and/or there is enough overhead anyway, the performance win by turning off > full normalization would be lost in the noise. > > > So if #2 is the expected use case, we could require full normalization. > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene — > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Norbert Lindenberg < > ecmascr...@norbertlindenberg.com> wrote: > > > The question for ECMAScript then is whether we should stick with "must > do" (the current state of the specifications) or change to "must be able to > do". > > > > > > The changes for "must be able to do" would be: > > > > > > - In the Language specification, remove the description of > String.prototype.localeCompare, and require implementations to follow the > Internationalization API specification at least for this method, or better > provide the complete Internationalization API. That way, localeCompare > acquires support for the normalization property in options, and the -kk- > key in the Unicode locale extensions. > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
