-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Case preserving has been there, and it is nice > for people who wants to support it. To make it > a requirement will ensure a uniform support, > and ensure a clear path for mixed use of > scripts and CJK character recovery cross all > types of devices, which adds more software work > but benefit a general public on a long run. Given > this does not effect DNS structurally, I don't see > why we can not make it a requirement.
Case preservation does affect DNS structurally. In particular, there have been IDN proposals discussed in this WG that do not support case preservation; Just-send-UTF-8 is one example. (That Just-send-UTF-8 has other problems is completely beside the point; the example is sufficient to demonstrate that requiring case preservation would eliminate some parts of the design space, IMHO without justification.) - -- 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 iQEVAwUBO8NJIjkCAxeYt5gVAQEucggAp0laoDeqsG1XTfAhVHdSebfw2dGzz9j6 bf9GUOReaKm4gpyue2BXZfG/BzQFvB9mai0/P50t3UNDrIrEhz78IK37c2NIbZnT ioEPdN/BkMsqRpRTM41s0R6XZBLZC5M4he7lXEIw/kxSP3iDoFvpy8VVo3Pdlm2g qYvy03H+bayh2BiAaP/sqGWwjlm3shBJldCdmgPguE3n1OabwbNoMEnEphW1do3v WM86ZcqUummqUYMu0I9y38j9wYYnNQ3t1yo3RmFgRhJqQgqHdCVMr6hRCuEQDRBA DDZf7kx1X6y5FWIi3mi/3xrgAd7ytZou5c13+KEDPsieE0jyJAHWkA== =crFz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
