I want to point out two things. 1. UCA provides a mechanism for producing a "deterministic" sort (there called semi-stable). See step 3.10 (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Step_3).
2. A "deterministic" sort is actually not needed very often; people confuse it with a stable sort. See http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Stability 3. If someone did customize the UCA for numeric sorting, the difference between 002 and 2 could be a tertiary difference. So even without using 3.10, they would be distinguished at level 3. Mark ________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193 (408) 256-3148 fax: (408) 256-0799 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Scherer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "unicode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 08:48 Subject: Re: ZWNJ & Persian Collation > Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > > Well, anything that is completely ignored in collation creates problems > > with deterministic sorting. > > I don't think you mean "deterministic". UCA is deterministic, it just sorts many strings as equal. > > > There are certain words in Persian, with > > completely different meanings, that only differ in a ZWNJ[1]. Having ZWNJ > > ignored by default, means they may appear in this or that order, possibly > > based on the original order of input. I guess this is not what we want > > for deterministic collation. > > > > The desired behavior for ZWNJ, is being treated like punctuations. > > Ignored in the first levels, but considered at the end. (Personal Note: > > write something for UTC on this.) > > Possible. I assume that ZWNJ is ignored in UCA because that is the expected behavior for many other > languages. Not ignoring ZWNJ is possible with a tailoring that gives it some non-zero weights. > > Note that many languages require tailorings for at least a couple of characters to follow national > standards. > > markus > > -- > Opinions expressed here may not reflect my company's positions unless otherwise noted. > > >
