Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Dave,

My take on at least a part of this interminible thread is scope, [30],
not language. Some of the local scope proponents are flogging product,
others appear to be concerned with local, even private differentiation.
We may also be doing a Hamming-distance dance around trademarks, which
may account for some of the heat without light.

I find it perplexing. In the case of roman scripts used for Algonquin
languages, either in their diacritical rich or simplified forms, we use
latin or extended latin differently from Europeans and Euro-Americans.
Different languages and scripts, same character repitoires, with some few
exceptions (e.g., Eastern Algonquin "8" U+0222 and U+0223).

In this case, local scope [30] seems sensible. Ditto for Siouian, Athabascan,
...
In the SC/TC context, local scope [30] seems senseless.

If you and/or John could just sort out the issue of scope, we could all
leave the question of scoped rules to those who actually have clue.

Eric