[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [idn] Re: Agenda Item for next UTC: Normalizing Case Mapping

At 12:31 AM 2/19/00 +0800, James Seng wrote: 
To say U+7535 U+90AE '.' U+53F0 U+6E7E != U+96FB U+90F5 '.' U+81FA U+7063 is
as good as saying email.tw != EMAIL.TW.

Could you explain why? I'm looking at the code charts, and U+7535 looks nothing like U+96FB; U+90AE looks only somewhat like U+90F5 (but is completely distinguishable). If you are saying "people might be as likely to write U+7535 U+90AE as they are U+96FB U+90F5 for the same word", that's similar to saying "people might write Duerst for Dürst". What they see on a display (paper or computer) is not confusing here.

But why should UC bother with Chinese 'case' folding? Afterall, this is a
problem unique to DNS and we should let it be handled it in DNS aliasing via
DNAME and CNAME, e.g

U+96FB U+90F5 '.' U+81FA U+7063 IN DNAME U+7535 U+90AE '.' U+53F0 U+6E7E

That is a local decision by the administrator for the domain in question (I can't tell which one you are saying is the base here).

I agreed this is not 'case folding' as one would normally associate with the
meaning of 'case'. But the problems are as real as I = dotless i.

The example you give here sounds like a problem of language synonyms, not one of script properties, which is what case is. Have I misinterpreted the example you gave?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium