From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But Kaplan is referring to something quite different, optionally > ignoring diacritics in search operations. This is indeed desirable, so > that a single search can match both Dvorak and DvoÅÃk for example, and > so that the one doing the search does not need to remember exactly which > diacritics are used in the name. And it is already covered by the > Unicode collation algorithm and default table, in which diacritics are > distinguished only at the second level and so folded by a top level only > collation.
(a) If this were true and it were the only need, then case folding would also just be "a UCA issue", yet case folding is in the document. (b) Not everyone uses the UCA who uses Unicode (most of the corporate members companies in Unicode -- including IBM -- had alternate collation methods that existed prior to the UCA and which to this day support more languages, in their databases and operating systems) (c) Since the operation (diacritic folding) is a valid one that implementations may want to do and the UCA is a UTS and thus not required for Unicode conformance, it is a sensible folding operation to define. Does diacritic folding destroy information provided by the distinctions that diacritcs provide? Of course it does. But then again, the same can be said of all foldings. This does not diminish their potential usefulness in specific tasks/operations. MichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Windows International Division
