From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64683 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2015 13:58:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 51935 invoked by uid 55); 9 Sep 2015 13:58:35 -0000 From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug locale/18927] Different strings should never collate as equal Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:58:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: locale X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.21 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00107.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18927 --- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, fweimer at redhat dot com wrote: > I find it extremely surprising that strcoll is not to supposed to perform some > form of normalization in UTF-8 and similar locales. Is this really the > intent? The intent is that, to avoid various surprising effects discussed in those issues (and the previous discussions on the Austin Group mailing list), byte-distinct strings do not collate the same (although if they normalize the same, I'd expect them to collate together relative to all other strings - differences in normalization being of the lowest precedence in collation). > Is there a reason not to use the Unicode Collation Algorithm? > > Well, our collation data is based on ISO 14651, which is meant to be equivalent, but updating it requires understanding just how the existing files relate to an old version of ISO 14651 and which local changes are or are not still relevant when updating to a newer version. See bug 14095. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.