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

[liana.ydisg@juno.com]

Hi, James and Chinese experts:
  You are right on the TC/SC equivalence not in Unicode.  
I know they wanted to put it in long time ago, so I assumed
it is reflected in there some how.   I have just read a reason
that it is not in there, because they think it is too difficult to 
put it in.   I happend to have an idea that 1100 half size  
code point may solve part of the problem and another 200
TC/SC listing completes it.  This can be used in [nameprep].
What do you think?
.
Liana 

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:53:38 +0800 "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
writes:
> > The SC character set has been used for decades and has went
> > through extensive nationwide testing in China.  SC is stable and 
> they
> are
> > properly reflected in Unicode standard.   The question is a
> definition:
> > is TC/SC a case folding?  It seems that in this WG, there has no
> > consensus on this definition yet.
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by "properly reflected" in Unicode 
> Standard.
> If you mean it is in ISO10646 codepoints, then yes, both TC/SC are 
> in
> the code points. But if you saying Unicode Consortium have proper
> definition of TC/SC, then I afraid to say there is none.
>