Re: [Ltru] Canonical variants

["Mark Davis" <mark.davis at icu-project.org>]

Mark

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Martin Duerst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

At 08:51 08/07/18, Mark Davis wrote:
>There are two parts that I think you don't have yet in the choice; order by prefix relations (you have) then most significant tag first, then alphabetic.

[as a technical contributor]

If 'alphabetic' comes after most significant subtag first, I'm able
to tolerate it in a section on how to create tags.

good

 

When it comes to
any potential change of tags, I think the best advice we can give
is 'leave as is', and I very much do not want to see 'alphabetical'
in there, because the "most important" may be a judgement by the
creator, which should be respected.

I'm ok with leaving that out -- it sounds like we may have sufficient consensus to move forward on this, putting in the tag wisely.

(On the side, since I really don't want to stir this up again: my view is if I pass in a tag xx-variant1-variant2 and some collection of data has xx-variant2-variant1, as far as I'm concerned that should return as a perfect match: as likely as not, any difference in the ordering is purely arbitrary on the part of either the user making the first tag or the user making the second tag. And if they are a perfect match, that implies that the canonical forms should be the same. But there is clearly no consensus on that so the important thing is to close this and move on.)

Regards,   Martin.

>Then I'm happy. (Well, reasonably. There is that whole war in Iraq, and melting economy, and moron president thing...)

[chair hat on: let's concentrate on the work of this WG :-] 

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru