Re: Editorial comments on stringprep
Erik Nordmark <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> I can't think of anything that would lead to that impression, in Unicode > or anywhere else. Uppercase, lowercase, and titlecase mapping are all > handled on a completely equal footing in Unicode. I didn't mean "undefined" as poorly specified. Sorry for my lack of Unicode clue - perhaps I've misunderstood something. But I recall hearing that given two arbitrary Unicode code points X and Y one could do a comparison of MaptoUpperCase(X) and MaptoUpperCase(Y) or MaptoLowerCase(X) and MaptoLowerCase(Y) Both of these are well-defined, but the results of the comparison will be different in some cases. I haven't verfied this but I think U+0131 and U+0049 would compare as equal in the first case but not in the second case. But I now realize that the above isn't germane to the text on which I commented. The above is just an argument that the spec must pick one or the other techniques for case insensitive comparison. Hmm - I don't recall if Patrik has some additional arguments for why lowercase is better in his plenary presentation in Minneapolis. Erik