On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 05:42:13PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:46:16PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> >While it's true POSIX locales don't handle this, other collation > >> >libraries do and we should support them if the user wants. > > I think that's backwards. We have to go with the lowest common denominator > functionality of those libraries if we're going to be portable.
And I think that's backwards. Why can we only use a feature once every OS out there implements it? We still run on systems that don't have SSL support. LC_TYPE settings are not portable between systems, yet that doesn't bother anyone. Why should we have a problem with collate settings not being portable? > I don't think composable unicode characters are really about collations. I > think it had more to do with representing glyphs in UTF32 before they gave up > on that. Does anyone still use composable characters? Lookup the various normalisations forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_normalization In particular Normal Form D. Sure, composable characters have nothing to do with collation, but they provide a uniform way of doing accent insensetive collation. > Note that we don't currently support composable characters at all. Any character which is an accent on a latin character is a decomposable character. And last I checked we supported those. Have a niceday, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while > boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
