One of the more helpful parts of this worth underlining here is probably this section, in my view:
"The feature of linguistic applicability deserves further discussion. DUCET does not and cannot actually provide linguistically correct sorting for every language without further tailoring. That would be impossible, due to conflicting requirements for ordering different languages that share the same script. It is not even possible in the specialized cases where a script may be predominantly used by a single language, because of the limitations of the DUCET table design and because of the requirement to minimize implementation overhead for all users of DUCET.
"Instead, the goal of DUCET is to provide a reasonable default ordering for all scripts that are not tailored. Any characters used in the language of primary interest for collation are expected to be tailored to meet all the appropriate linguistic requirements for that language. For example, for a user interested primarily in the Malayalam language, DUCET would be tailored to get all details correct for the expected Malayalam collation order, while leaving other characters (Greek, Cyrillic, Han, and so forth) in the default order, because the order of those other characters is not of primary concern. Conversely, a user interested primarily in the Greek language would use a Greek-specific tailoring, while leaving the Malayalam (and other) characters in their default order in the table."
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Emerson
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Unicode collation for Bibframe (Re: Filing indicators)
Riley, Charles writes:
> There is something to work with here that I think would address that:
UTS #10 tracks ISO 14651 the same way the Unicode Standard tracks ISO
10646: while the descriptions differ, the two organizations strive to keep the data tables synchronised.
Principal Software Engineer, Search
[log in to unmask]