Agreed. FYI, for those interested, here is the data file I generated with the approaches A, B, C as discussed.
https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AqRLrRqNEKv-dGk0RHVoQWN6OGw1TVFNOWRaMEJfWEE&gid=0 Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Shawn Steele <shawn.ste...@microsoft.com>wrote: > I'd try to avoid making a dependency where case mapping needs to be the > same as case insensitive comparisons. > > I'd either always case fold then compare, or always compare case > insensitive. > > -Shawn > > -----Original Message----- > From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On > Behalf Of James Cloos > Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2013 5:43 PM > To: Mark Davis ☕ > Cc: Whistler, Ken; unicode@unicode.org > Subject: Re: locale-aware string comparisons > > >>>>> "MD" == Mark Davis ☕ <m...@macchiato.com> writes: > > MD> All of these are different, all of them still have over 200 > MD> differences from either compare(lower(x),lower(y)) or compare(upper > MD> (x),upper(y)) > > What about, then: > > compare(lower(x),lower(y)) || compare(upper(x),upper(y)) > > Or, to emphasize that I mentioned C only as a pseudocode, akin to SQL: > > LOWER(x) LIKE LOWER(y) OR UPPER(x) LIKE UPPER(y) > > Would that cover all of the outliers? > > -JimC > -- > James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 > > > >
