Mike,
Thanks for your response. I find myself disappointed that there isn't more
participation in this discussion (from others than you and I), but it will
undoubtedly come ;^)
At 05:05 PM 02/11/2001 + Sunday, J M Sykes wrote:
>I think you misunderstand me. The "maximum level" I was refer
D]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Fred Zemke"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 11:42
Subject: Re: Unicode collation algorithm - interpretation]
> Mike, Jim,
>
> I
Mike, Jim,
I am confused by this thread so I will offer my perspective.
The collation algorithm is small and can be written to work
flexibly with different levels of sorting.
It is easy to have a parameterized table format so that
tables can have different levels.
I find I need to have the abi
Jim,
Thanks for the reply, which Hugh had indeed alerted me to expect. See
interpolations below.
> I particularly want to respond to the statement that you made:
>
> >It has been suggested that SQL should instead identify
> >both collation element table and maximum level.
>
> I believe that the
t;
Cc: "Fred Zemke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 12:34 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Unicode collation algorithm - interpretation]
Mike,
In a message that you sent to the Unicode list on
In the proposal for better accommodating UCS in SQL, we assumed that a
comparison performed according to UTR#10, "Unicode Technical Standard #10
Unicode Collation Algorithm", would require four parameters, viz.
Two strings to be compared
A collation element table
A maximum level as
6 matches
Mail list logo
