On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pablo Castro > <[email protected]> wrote: >> No, that was poor wording on my part, I keep using "locale" in the wrong >> context. I meant to have the API take a proper collation identifier. The >> identifier can be as specific as the caller wants it to be. The >> implementation could choose to not honor some specific detail if it can't >> handle it (to the extent that doing so is allowed by the specification of >> collation names), or fail because it considers that not handling a >> particular aspect of the collation identifier would severely deviate from >> the caller's expectations. > > I'm not sure I understand you. My personal opinion is that there > should be no undefined behavior here. If authors are allowed to pass > collation identifiers, the spec needs to say exactly how they're to be > interpreted, so the same identifier passed to two different browsers > will result in the same collation, i.e., the same strings need to sort > the same cross-browser. Having only binary collation is better than > having non-binary collations but not defining them, IMO.
I definitely agree that we should do as best we can to define strict behavior. However I also note that if there is no reasonable spec that we can work off of, then I'm reluctant to wait indefinitely for that. However I absolutely think that once there is a spec to work off of, we should make that spec mandatory. That means that already now implementations should take whatever steps necessary in order to prepare for such a transition. / Jonas
