Kenneth Whistler > 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.)
And I had the same conclusion in my previous long analysis, except that I did not forgot this canonical equivalence. Except also that I used another notation to compare case foldings and case mappings. I also concluded that using combining dots with i's was a big hack, and that this hack was introduced only in the Full case mappings, just to confuse implementations, and make the life even worse for programmers that expect a correct behavior with case folding. Morality: I don't use now case folding which preserves canonical equivalence with a hack, but only lowercase(uppercase()) which respects canonical equivalence, and is more coherent for full text indexing, secured identification, cases-insensitive file naming... __________________________________________________________________ << ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Newsletters for me You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
