From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98339 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2015 15:28:46 -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 98270 invoked by uid 48); 9 Sep 2015 15:28:42 -0000 From: "egmont at gmail dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug locale/18927] Different strings should never collate as equal Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:28:00 -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: egmont at gmail 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/msg00108.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18927 --- Comment #9 from Egmont Koblinger --- (In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #8) > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, fweimer at redhat dot com wrote: > 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). I'd love to see it, this is what this bugreport is about :) tr10's A.3.2 shows the wrappers that turn a non-deterministic coll/xfrm methods into deterministic ones - pretty much what I outlined here, although they forget to mention that SEPARATOR needs to sort before any possible byte within old_sort_key. The wrapper around strcoll() is more obvious. The fact that they talk about these wrappers as possible external methods, rather than having to be build inside the collate implementation, makes me uncertain whether my request is in align with the standard. (I'm yet to read the whole docs.) Btw, a side question: What happens, and what should happen, if the input to strcoll() or strxfrm() is not valid UTF-8? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.