There is always something like UCA:

which looks interesting.


On 29 April 2011 20:32, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Keean Schupke <> wrote:
> > On Friday, 29 April 2011, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Pablo Castro
> >> <> wrote:
> >>> We've had quite a bit of debate on this but I don't think we've reached
> closure. At this point I would be fine with either one of a) postpone to v2
> and agree that for now we'll just do binary collation everywhere or b) the
> last form of the proposal sent around: extra "collation" argument (following
> BCP47 plus whatever the UA wants to allow) in createObjectStore/createIndex,
> plus a collation property to interrogate it; no way to change the collation
> of a store/index once created.
> >>>
> >>> Given that this turned out to be a more elaborate topic than I had
> originally expected and that it doesn't seem to have a lot of traction right
> now, my preference would be to postpone to v2. Thoughts? Once we make a call
> I'll make sure the spec reflects it.
> >>
> >> I'd be fine with postponing it. However I don't think that the counter
> >> proposals that we've received will work, so I don't think that there
> >> is a reason to postpone.
> >>
> >> / Jonas
> >>
> >>
> >
> > As long as we have a binary mode I am happy. If it is to support other
> > collations, then all browsers must support the same set of options.
> > The question then becomes what set of collation modes to standardise
> > on? Allowing non standard collations will result in apps that will
> > only run correctly on one browser, and that does not seem a good idea
> > to me.
> I agree that we will eventually want to standardize the set of allowed
> collations. Similarly to how we'll want to standardize on one set of
> charset encodings supported. However I don't think we, in this spec
> community, have enough experience to come up with a good such set. So
> it's something that I think we should postpone for now. As I
> understand it there is work going on in this area in other groups, so
> hopefully we can lean on that work eventually.
> Of course, we still do need to have a standardized vocabulary for the
> collations though.
> / Jonas

Reply via email to