--On 01-07-17 08.24 +0900 Soobok Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrik F?tstr?" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> fault? Maybe because I did choose to use a charset you can not support,
> and
>> that is a valid issue, but if you DO handle the charset, or if you don't,
>> how do your client handle that situation? _Those_ situations are what we
>> should talk about and not this smalltalk about "my software is better
>> than yours".
>
> Could NAMEPREP elminate all the script/glyph ambiguities across
> languages?
>
> katakana 'ka' and chinese letter 'power(U+529B)' look the same.
> When we normalize them in either directions, there may be conflict of
> interests between Japan and China.
I have not claimed nameprep do solve all problems, but, we have agreed on
this list that what is needed for interoperability is that everyone uses
the same algorithm when doing nameprep, and that that should be applied
before strings are compared.
Now, if you are unhappy with the current definition of nameprep, please
come with suggestions on how it can be approved.
paf
