Hi Esra, I still think you're wrong :).
On 05/02/2008 at 9:31 AM, esra wrote: > > ژ = U+632 According to the website you linked to, the above character, which has three dots over it, is named "zhe", and its Unicode code point is U+698. (I had to increase the font size to see the three dots.) I think you are confusing "ژ"/"zhe"/U+698 with the letter "ز"/"ze"/U+632, which has just one dot over it. Unless you were mistaken in all of your emails when you included the character "ژ"/"zhe" instead of "ز"/"ze", then what I said in my previous email still stands: there is no problem here. Steve On 05/02/2008 at 9:31 AM, esra wrote: > > Hi Steven, > > sorry i made a mistake. unicodes are like this: > > > د=U+62F > > ژ = U+632 > > and the first letter of "ساب ووفر " is س = U+633 > > you can also check them here > > http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/persian-alphabet.html > > Esra > > > Steven A Rowe wrote: > > > > Hi Esra, > > > > Going back to the original problem statement, I see something that > > looks illogical to me - please correct me if I'm wrong: > > > > On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:21 AM, esra wrote: > > > i am using lucene's "IndexSearcher" to search the given xml by > > > keyword which contains farsi information. > > > while searching i use ranges like > > > > > > آ-ث | ج-خ | د-ژ | س-ظ | ع-ق | ک-ل | م-ی > > > > > > when i do search for "د-ژ" range the results are wrong , they > > > are the results of " س-ظ "range. > > > > > > for example when i do search for "د-ژ" one of the the results is > > > "ساب ووفر", this result also shown on the " س-ظ " range's result > > > list which is the corret range. > > > > > > As IndexSearcher use "compareTo" method and this method uses > > > unicodes for comparing, i found the unicodes of the characters. > > > > > > د=U+62F > > > ژ = U+698 > > > and the first letter of "ساب ووفر " is س = U+633 > > > > It appears to me that *both* the "د-ژ" range [ U+062F - U+0698 ] and > > the "س-ظ" range [ U+0633 - U+0638 ] contain the first letter of "ساب > > ووفر", which is "س" = U+0633. > > > > You stated that U+0633 should be contained in the [ U+0633 - U+0638 ] > > range - I agree - but why do you think U+0633 should not be contained > > in the [ U+062F - U+0698 ] range? > > > > In other words, it looks to me like your problem is not a problem at > > all. > > > > Steve > > > > > > -- View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/lucene-farsi-problem-tp16977096p17019498.html Sent > from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To > unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
