Re: Re: IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete?

James Seng wrote:

>
>Whether DF should be decompose to "SS" or otherwise is defined in NFKC.
>Therefore, this question should be appropriately address in Unicode
>Consortium.

It is not decomposed in NFKC, from what I can see.
It is in the special, multi character case folding file.
Though as it is already a "small letter sharp s" I cannot understand
how one can lower case it once more. It is already lower case.

>
>> While there is not doubt about the above, I am not sure that
>> the nameprep specification that 00DF (small letter sharp s) should
>> be matted to "ss". I am not sure how Germans handle this character.
>> Do they always replace double s with it? Or only on some special words?
>> If they do not generally do this, the mapping should not be done.
>> It is somewhat like the fact that the Greek version of latin A is
>> not mapped to the Roman version of latin A. Even though their origin
>> is the same latin A and look alike.
>> While "small letter sharp s" looks like "small letter beta", there are
>> no similarities between double s and "small letter sharp s". So why not
>> let "small letter sharp s" remain that and be a distinctive character
>> in a domain name. I assume Germans use it to write German words. Not
>> to replace double s in non-German names.
>>


   Dan