in reply to Re^3: RFC: Is this the correct use of Unicode::Collate?
in thread RFC: Is this the correct use of Unicode::Collate?
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
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^5: RFC: Is this the correct use of Unicode::Collate?
by tchrist (Pilgrim) on Jan 17, 2012 at 18:53 UTC | |
by flexvault (Monsignor) on Jan 17, 2012 at 20:06 UTC |