ADQL-2.1 internal draft

[Dave Morris]

On 2015-06-11 12:22, Markus Demleitner wrote:
> 
> Hence I think the current text for LOWER must be defused, and the one
> for ILIKE made more precise, or we'll have lots of non-conforming
> implementations (for trivial reasons that for most DBs won't even
> matter).
> 
> The text in the implementation note encouraged people to adhere to
> unicode conventions.  That's I believe all we can do.
> 

Yep, I agree.

I'll update the text for LOWER to recommend rather than require the 
unicode conventions.

> 
> I don't think ADQL needs to specify this.  Like Unicode itself,
> database backends in effect work on code points, not on byte streams,
> and thus you cannot talk about encodings.
> 
> It is the implementor's responsibility to make sure her database
> client's sequences of codepoints ("strings") actually make it into
> the database as the same codepoints.

Yep, I agree.

>  That, however, has nothing to
> do with the encoding of the query string or the behaviour of LOWER
> or ILIKE.
> 

Yep, I (think) agree - unless I'm missing something too.

Dave



--------
Dave Morris
Senior Troll
Wide Field Astronomy Unit
Institute for Astronomy
University of Edinburgh
--------