I apologize for yet another message on lexicographic sorting but
in light of the considerable confusion exibited on this issue I'd like
to see
three points emphasised.
1. Lexicograpahic is important precisely because it is so well defined
(and
because of this I suspect the spec writers really meant it when the
wrote it in. )
It provides an easy to check reference implementation that is 99% usable.
2. The notion of "lexicographic sorting" in the "culturally correct"
manner is also valid,
but it falls short of implementing all of UTR 10. The only "cultural
choice" you have in a
lexicograpahic sort is in deciding on a total order of the symbols of
your alphabet.
After that, everything else is determined.
3. Placing selected "words" out of lexicographic order (however well
intended)
clearly violates the lexicographic constraint of the spec and is in
error as the spec
is currently worded.
As a follow on action, I'd like to see the spec writers clarify (in the
spec)
that they really do mean lexicographic, and perhaps augment the list of
available sorts
by a "pseudo-lexicographical" or "word" based sort in order to capture
what actually got implemented and which is important for its own reasons
but is much less well defined.
Stan Devitt
Markus Abt wrote:
David,
It seems to me that the XSLT specification wants lexicographic ordering in the
culturally correct manner.
Mabye this is a contradiction, in this case I would regard this an error in the
XSLT spec.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list