Talk:Unicode collation algorithm

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Whats "tailoring" in this context? Theres no explanation here and I cant find other articles to wikilink. Shinhan 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode collation algorithm → Unicode Collation Algorithm — Change to official case (proper noun). Chealer (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Oppose, lets keep the lowercase one. As I read it, the title is also a correct description of the thing. Therefor we do not need to use the proper name. e.g. think of naming it "Collation (Unicode)" for this same page (is not a proposal, but to illustrate my point). But maybe I do not see enough. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't get the sense that UCA is a proper name in the same sense as George Washington is a proper name. We don't capitalize binary search, quicksort, or shellsort. There's only one George, but there may be many implementations (and even copies of those implementations) of the algorithm. It doesn't refer to a particular individual. Glrx (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Using UCA from programming languages[edit]

As of 2015, few programming languages offer built-in UCA-compatible alphabetic sorting, and the programmer needs to call on third-party software.

1. International Components for Unicode (ICU): the collation module.

    Free: yes
    Usable from: C, C++, Java
    Written in: C, C++
    Source available: yes
    Link: http://site.icu-project.org/

2. ICU4PAS, a wrapper for the 2006 version of ICU.

    Free: yes
    Written in: Object Pascal
    Usable from: Delphi Pascal, Free Pascal
    Source available: yes
    Link: http://www.crossgl.com/icu4pas/index.html

3. Ouedraogo's UCA implementation.

    Free: yes
    Written in: Object Pascal
    Usable from: Free Pascal
    Source available: yes
    Link: https://github.com/graemeg/freepascal/blob/master/rtl/objpas/unicodedata.pas
          https://forums.embarcadero.com/message.jspa?messageID=694421#694421

There may be others. See, for a start, the language wrappers for ICU listed at http://site.icu-project.org/related

This could be merged with the existing "Tools" section of the article, but note that the Tools section presently consists of (1) an online demo with a secondary reference to ICU; (2) a unix stand-alone utility; (3) an apparently inaccessible library. Programming libraries, stand-alone utilities, and online demos are tools for different purposes, and it would be best not to mix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.80.128 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External link appears to be broken[edit]

The external link to "Unicode Technical Standard #10" appears to be broken. I have found what appears to be equivalent material at https://unicode.org/reports/tr10/ but I don't feel that I am competent to change the link on the Wikipedia Article page.