Correcting myself:
> Note that none of the 3 sets of equivalence classes violates
> *canonical* equivalence, because none of the 8 sequences involved
> is canonically equivalent to any other. In other words, no matter
> which of the 3 approaches you take to case folding, in no instance
> are you claiming that canonically equivalent sequences are to be
> interpreted differently.
Actually, dotted I *is* canonically equivalent to <I, dot above>
(I overlooked that when compiling the summary.)
Hence the equivalence classes for simple case folding:
C. { dotted I }
D. { <i, dot above>, <I, dot above> }
*do* violate canonical equivalence. And that is the whole
reason for the separate definition of full case folding,
which defines the equivalence class:
G. { dotted I, <i, dot above>, <I, dot above> }
which observes canonical equivalence, but which has the
drawback of string length change in case folding.
--Ken
