This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 6231 - [XSLT 2.0] Default default collation
Summary: [XSLT 2.0] Default default collation
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XSLT 2.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Recommendation
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Kay
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-11-17 13:49 UTC by Michael Kay
Modified: 2010-07-15 08:12 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Kay 2008-11-17 13:49:01 UTC
I was under the impression that the "default default collation" (for XPath eq comparison, etc) was defined to be Unicode codepoint collation. But reading the spec, it says that for the use-when attribute, but it doesn't seem to say it for anything else. Section 5.4.1 points to 3.6.1:

The default collationXP is defined by the value of the [xsl:]default-collation attribute on the innermost enclosing element that has such an attribute. For details, see 3.6.1 The default-collation attribute.

but neither this nor 3.6.1 says what the rules are in the absence of such an attribute.

We ought either to say that the "default default" is the Unicode codepoint collation, or that it is implementation-defined. My preference is for the former (which I had always imagined was what the spec said).

This arose from a question on xsl-list today from Vyacheslav Sedov discussing whether it was legitimate to perform Unicode normalization as part of an "eq" comparison.
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2009-02-12 17:55:09 UTC
The WG felt that this ought to be at least potentially under API control, which means it should be "implementation-defined". Editor to write proposed text.
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2009-03-13 22:09:12 UTC
Erratum E36 has been drafted to reflect the decision made in principle by the WG.
Comment 3 Michael Kay 2010-07-15 08:12:59 UTC
Closed. Erratum E36 was published in April 2009.