Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:28:11 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> To: ghostmansd@gmail.com Cc: soc-status@freebsd.org, Konrad Jankowski <versus@freebsd.org>, freebsd-i18n@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Report #9: Unicode support Message-ID: <53FDF90B.4030400@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAMqzjeuUrpOfkX41bTY62NRNap0NetCKzTpSv5JaUC4Qvh59sA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMqzjesx=uhUzmTEJEq8zoxkhWXBtYOXVXQ1bmiTiEw0=-gF0w@mail.gmail.com> <20140826221610.GD65120@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <53FD1599.7040708@freebsd.org> <CAMqzjesGZmpXgHHvOQqOHzTwZJK=KZNyDaC9QkTX%2B6j=wpO7zw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMqzjeuUrpOfkX41bTY62NRNap0NetCKzTpSv5JaUC4Qvh59sA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/27/14 05:51, Dmitry Selyutin wrote: > ... >>> You never answered my question concerning the fallback options. >> Really? I thought that I answered. :-D Well, I'll try to explain >> again. DUCET seems to be a bit obsolete collation table, which can be >> more or less successfully used with real languages. However, in real >> world it is completely unusable, so ICU and other use CLDR collation >> table, which supports more levels. I started with DUCET since there >> was much more information about it, but then I found that it doesn't >> fit well, so I switched to CLDR. We have DUCET table somewhere in our >> revisions though; as a fallback option, it still may be useful, so I >> can restore it if you want. I don't see DUCET as being ever used but we are setting the old algorithm as a fallback for CLDR. I was just wondering how DUCET compares to the existing algorithm. Given that DUCET is in the standard and that you already implemented it, I thought it would be a better fallback than the old code. It's your call though. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53FDF90B.4030400>