Re: Review of sort

[Mark Crispin <mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Yes... i;basic does ordering like dictionaries for most of the world. 
> Very elaborate, very high quality. i;unicode-casemap does something 
> much, much simpler. Simple to implement and good for associative 
> arrays, which is a very important task. IMO both are needed.

I agree.

> I'm not 100% sure whether there are programs or protocols that do need 
> i;unicode-casemap and don't (in some other capacity) need i;basic. It 
> could be that i;basic could take over i;unicode-casemap's job, assuming 
> the performace difference is manageable. Right now I think it couldn't, 
> but I may change my mind.

I have i;unicode-casemap now, and it is likely to be some time before I 
will have i;basic.

As I understand the current documents, the choices boil down to:
 (a) comply by downgrading the existing i;unicode-casemap back to
     i;ascii-casemap
 (b) implement i;basic
 (c) don't comply, and disregard the documents
 (d) get i;unicode-casemap into the documents, thus bringing the
     status quo into compliance.

Of these, only (d) seems desirable.  Or rather, (b) is desirable but it 
isn't going to happen.  The danger with (c) is that once a document is 
defied as being out of touch with reality, it tends to remain in that 
state forever.

Hence, let's go with (d)!

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.