Re: Sorting Upper-Case first. Microsoft bug?
> Dr. Johnson and every lexicographer since has used case as the least > significant, most rapidly varying element in ordering. The example I > have in front of me from the Concise Oxford Dictionary lists daily - > Dalmatian - dalmatic and I would not expect it to do anything else. Dictionaries are not really a good example to follow here as they don't have to deal with all strings, it probably doesn't list DAILY or dalmatioN at all, but xsl:sort has to deal with these things. > When Dennis Ritchie devised C before 1978, strcmp() would give a sort > order that would place Dalmatian first (assuming ASCII) but in those > days most of us were still using uppercase-only i/o devices and not > worried about such refinements. If we were, we used strcmpi(). ASCII ordering would put all the uppercase before all the lowercase: ordering A B C a b c. No one has suggested xsl:sort is specified as doing that, despite several people giving that as a reason for not implementing xsl:sort as specified. > The world has moved on and the whole thrust of Unicode is to coerce the > mechanical representation of text into natural linguistic usage, so > Dr. Johnson wins. As I commented before, the discussion really isn't about the best way of sorting. XSLT2 is far more flexible, and far more explictly system dependent in this area, which is probably a good thing. The question is about what the XSLT 1 spec says. > There will be all sorts of interesting issues that arise in considering > the natural ordering of words from different linguistic groups, not > borrowings like yacht and pyjama, but with equal cultural weight. Yes, of course. > I suspect you are in a minority of one and the unanimity of the XSLT > processors suggests that the interpretation they have adopted is the > correct one. I wouldn't disagree with you that the evidence suggests that within a relevant community I am in a minority, however given that the phrase "lexicographic ordering" is (and has been for a century or so) totally standard terminology used without comment in any mathematical work on ordered sets (a field which covers a large part of the mathematical literature) and is similarly standard terminology in any computer science discussion of sorting, I wouldn't say that there is any room for interpretation in the text of the XSLT 1 spec. It would take an errata to change the text of the specification to justify the currently implemented algorithms. I can understand if lexicographers are annoyed if the term "lexicographic ordering" doesn't describe an ordering that they recognise as useful, as it is a purely mechanical ordering ignoring the art of lexicography entirely, but on the other hand they should be used to the idea that words get used by convention in ways not immediately suggested by their etymology. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format