moritz,
But all the references in the article are related to data in databases. I goggled ASCII and UTF-8, and found many times "...UTF-8 uses one byte for any ASCII characters, which have the same code values in both UTF-8 and ASCII encoding...", so why are the 0 - 127 characters being redefined? I understand the complexity of the subject, but the designers of UTF-8 knew better than to mess with ASCII, and that is why UTF-8 enhances ASCII.
'Unicode::Collate' is core, so it could be used a lot in the future, as it should be. But a lot of production environments will be affected if they don't know in advance that the code points of ASCII have been redefined.
My hope was that someone would say 'ASCII => 1' will work like Perl 'sort' for ASCII characters and UTF-8, etc for anything above 127.
Thank you
"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
In reply to Re^4: RFC: Is this the correct use of Unicode::Collate?
by flexvault
in thread RFC: Is this the correct use of Unicode::Collate?
by flexvault
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |