the keyword here "useful" (which you used) vs "required" feature. think about it :-)
james ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [idn] WG Update > David, > Are you saying that the possibility of recover uppercase > of Latin, Greek or Cyrillic is not a useful feature from > deployment of IDN? > > Liana > > On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 07:33:06 +0100 David Hopwood > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Erin Chen wrote: > > > As in the 2. General Requirements of 2.3 Canonicalization > > > > > > [21] In order to retain backward compatibility with the current > > DNS, > > > the service MUST retain the case-insensitive comparison for > > US-ASCII > > > as specified in RFC 1035. For example, Latin capital letter A > > (U+0041) > > > MUST match Latin small letter a (U+0061). Unicode Technical Report > > #21 > > > describes some of the issues with case mapping. Case-insensitivity > > for > > > non US-ASCII MUST be discussed in the protocol proposal. > > > > > > I recommend modify the last line "MUST be discussed" to be > > > "MUST be provided", as to be " Case-insensitivity for non US-ASCII > > MUST be > > > provided in the protocol proposal" > > > > I disagree. As it happens, all of the proposals provide > > case-insensitivity > > for non-US-ASCII, but it is *not* a requirement. The protocol would > > work > > fine and would be perfectly acceptable to users without it. We > > should be > > clear about the difference between features that are *desirable* (in > > this > > case for consistency), and *required* features. > > > > In particular, preservation of case is wholly unnecessary, IMHO. > > [21] is perfectly OK as it is (although much of the rest of the > > requirements > > draft is not; I'll discuss that in another post). > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The TC/SC equivalent class is always conceptually described by the > > > similar properties of case in ASCII characters, ... > > > > No, it is not. TC/SC folding is an entirely separate issue to case > > folding. As I've pointed out before, it is counterproductive to try > > to > > argue by an analogy that a consensus of the WG does not accept. > > > > - -- > > David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ > > RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 > > 15 01 > > Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I > > revoke a > > public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key > > has been > > seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see > > www.fipr.org/rip > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: 2.6.3i > > Charset: noconv > > > > iQEVAwUBO7/2zTkCAxeYt5gVAQGvZQgAvWfiHcqPPog2htBBOhtLUXMP4dOSVI5/ > > F03Wk4oeYhyr32wMhjbDDsxCwdroAdhExEiAwLt31qpg7dSuyglzM3VILxznvvVu > > /inTb1oari9SnGjwu2hDKlTs5lfeTHKiSsdm5D1xAwaUo6fA8RW0gaDWv20elt74 > > fm+WmS+3QHRxM4Y6MdCtjLpJdC0ywZUyDo/wfM9iMNsc7WHWzfWCE37xFQYH9nsJ > > zvRxfzV9AaEkV0ZtxBJWRknP1E59Gv3zGBi60WHX21/1ZykGu/6e6pk8OZ+CEHx4 > > Ock7UKySbpkqXOncpCwJVSEdJyW+Y0hqfSCwzmlRXl5JIOpCoENHvQ== > > =oyij > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > >
