basic question about collation strategies

--===============0697461899==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147efce2783680515bd99bf

--001a1147efce2783680515bd99bf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

My nonprofit is only beginning to address
non-Latin-1 characters in full names in
corporate listings.  My current plan is to
allow a Full_name field in any script e.g.
Devanagari, but then insist on at least
single letters A-Z in Last and First name
fields.  Some examples:

https://flic.kr/p/sqV14G
(using religious types from Wikipedia
for pseudo-records)

Although I've worked in libraries which
have alphabetization worked out across
multiple languages (I could return Arabic
titles to their proper place in my hey day),
I am less sure of how Unicode handles
collations across all language boundaries.

It seemed easier to use the Roman alphabet
to force a simple last, first collation, whereas
Full_name is not used for collation at all and
may be in any character set supported by
Unicode.  Given Roman letters have phonetic
value, one looks for the Full_name based
on how you'd sound it out in "Romanji" (the
Nipponese name for Roman letter scripts,
such as Python's keywords and Standard
Library).

Is there an industry standard I should know
about and is my simplification of alpha
searching an accepted strategy?

Kirby

--001a1147efce2783680515bd99bf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div>My nonprofit is only beginning to address</div><d=
iv>non-Latin-1 characters in full names in=C2=A0</div><div>corporate listin=
gs.=C2=A0 My current plan is to</div><div>allow a Full_name field in any sc=
ript e.g.</div><div>Devanagari, but then insist on at least=C2=A0</div><div=
>single letters A-Z in Last and First name</div><div>fields.=C2=A0 Some exa=
mples:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://flic.kr/p/sqV14G">https:=
//flic.kr/p/sqV14G</a><br></div><div>(using religious types from Wikipedia=
=C2=A0</div><div>for pseudo-records)</div><div><br></div><div>Although I&#3=
9;ve worked in libraries which=C2=A0</div><div>have alphabetization worked =
out across</div><div>multiple languages (I could return Arabic</div><div>ti=
tles to their proper place in my hey day),=C2=A0</div><div>I am less sure o=
f how Unicode handles=C2=A0</div><div>collations across all language bounda=
ries. =C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>It seemed easier to use the Roman alp=
habet=C2=A0</div><div>to force a simple last, first collation, whereas=C2=
=A0</div><div>Full_name is not used for collation at all and=C2=A0</div><di=
v>may be in any character set supported by=C2=A0</div><div>Unicode.=C2=A0 G=
iven Roman letters have phonetic</div><div>value, one looks for the Full_na=
me based=C2=A0</div><div>on how you&#39;d sound it out in &quot;Romanji&quo=
t; (the</div><div>Nipponese name for Roman letter scripts,</div><div>such a=
s Python&#39;s keywords and Standard</div><div>Library).</div><div><br></di=
v><div>Is there an industry standard I should know</div><div>about and is m=
y simplification of alpha=C2=A0</div><div>searching an accepted strategy?</=
div><div><br></div><div>Kirby</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>

--001a1147efce2783680515bd99bf--

--===============0697461899==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
I18n-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-sig

--===============0697461899==--