Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Index sort should disregard capitalization #680

Closed
ietf-svn-bot opened this issue Oct 14, 2021 · 10 comments · Fixed by #763
Closed

Index sort should disregard capitalization #680

ietf-svn-bot opened this issue Oct 14, 2021 · 10 comments · Fixed by #763
Assignees

Comments

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link

owner:kesara@staff.ietf.org resolution_fixed type_defect | by mahoney@nostrum.com


Entries in the index should be sorted alphabetically without regard for capitalization. Please see the linked file.

Current output:

  A
     Accept header field  Section 12.5.1
     Accept-Charset header field  Section 12.5.2
     Accept-Encoding header field  Section 12.5.3
     Accept-Language header field  Section 12.5.4
     Accept-Ranges header field  Section 14.3
     Allow header field  Section 10.2.1
     Authentication-Info header field  Section 11.6.3
     Authorization header field  Section 11.6.2
     accelerator  Section 3.7, Paragraph 6
     authoritative response  Section 17.1

Desired output:

  A
     accelerator  Section 3.7, Paragraph 6
     Accept header field  Section 12.5.1
     Accept-Charset header field  Section 12.5.2
     Accept-Encoding header field  Section 12.5.3
     Accept-Language header field  Section 12.5.4
     Accept-Ranges header field  Section 14.3
     Allow header field  Section 10.2.1
     Authentication-Info header field  Section 11.6.3
     Authorization header field  Section 11.6.2
     authoritative response  Section 17.1

https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.xml

This issue was in v2 a while back. See https://trac.ietf.org/trac/xml2rfc/ticket/255


Issue migrated from trac:680 at 2022-02-08 07:17:48 +0000

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@mahoney@nostrum.com commented


Huh, according to https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-iref-2, it's supposed to be case sensitive?

Please look at the subitems under the "Grammar" entry (capitalized entries span two pages in the PDF, and lowercase entries are on the next two pages):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.html#rfc.index.u71

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@johnl@taugh.com commented


I believe it says case-sensitive, but that is clearly wrong. Nobody wants a case-sensitive index.

Note for the future: case folding ASCII is easy, but case folding Unicode correctly is close to impossible since the folding and even alphabetic order rules are language specific. Unicode UTR#30 provides some rules that are close enough.

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@johnl@taugh.com commented


I checked with the author of 7991 and the intention was that the index entries be displayed in their original case. Nobody thinks it is useful to sort all the A's before the a's.

So we should fix it.

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@kesara@staff.ietf.org changed status from new to assigned

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@kesara@staff.ietf.org set owner to kesara@staff.ietf.org

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@kesara@staff.ietf.org changed status from assigned to closed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@kesara@staff.ietf.org set resolution to fixed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@kesara@staff.ietf.org commented


Fixed in a894852:

Fixes a bug where the index is case sensitive. Fixes #680. Commit ready for merge.

@ajeanmahoney
Copy link
Collaborator

This issue is still seen in RFC 9110 (was draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19):

https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/rfc9110.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/v3test/rfc9110.xml

@rjsparks rjsparks reopened this Apr 25, 2022
@kesara
Copy link
Member

kesara commented Apr 26, 2022

Looks like the fix (a894852) hasn't been merged into the main branch.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants