If IDN is going to be universal to all devices, then a handheld device may have uppercase support for a sick user to have a familar reading quickly. So I think your case preserving arguement should be considered.
Liana On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:33:56 +0200 (MEST) Dan Oscarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> 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. > > Well, I disagree to that. > > It *is* a requirement that case-insensitivity shall work for all > letters. > That has been the DNS standard so far. That is what people expect. > To have case-sensitive matching is not fine for everybody. > > If we are not going to support case-insensivity and case preserving > in > responses, then we should turn it of for ASCII too. > Either we support full backward compatibility (that includes having > case-insensitivity and case preserving in protocol for all letters), > or we kill it off for ASCII letters too. > Just because non-ASCII has not been used, does not mean that people > expect the same rules that exist for ASCII to exist for non-ASCII. > The current DNS standard has defined that case-insensitivity shall > be > used and that case should be preserved in responses. We break that > if it is not done for non-ASCII letters too. > > Dan > >
