Re: [xsl] Sorting Upper-Case first. Microsoft bug?

[Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Markus,

Actually,   I don't think we are that far apart.   I strongly agree with 
you that the kind sort you mention is very important. I was definitely 
not suggesting it be removed and I don't really care what the various 
sorts are called.  (Also, I'm only guessing that true lexicographic 
really was meant in the first place ...)

My biggest concern was over the "technical" contradiction between the 
REC and the implementations and the evident difficulty in reaching a 
concensus on that fact.

I was also somewhat surprised that people did not seem to have noticed  
that  an implementor COULD have  remained technically true to the 
lexicographic reference in the spec. and also addressed many  (50% ?,  
80%?,  more? )  cultural differences also as directed by the REC.  The 
fact that multiple implementors chose to sacrifice the technical meaning 
of  lexicographic to further the cultural directive just lends weight to 
your argument of how important  the other kind sort is and I'm not 
disagreeing with their decision.

Bottom line:   People should not be this confused by the REC. A REC of 
this sort should definitely not
use a technical word like lexicographic in a non-technical sense.  
Either it did, or there is a contradiction.

We may still disagree on the importance of a true lexicographic sort, 
but we can debate that elsewhere.
Myself, I find it much more useful for my kind of data . :)

Stan Devitt

>  



XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list