Re: [idn] WG Update

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

the keyword here "useful" (which you used) vs "required" feature.
think about it :-)

james

----- Original Message -----
From: <liana.ydisg@juno.com>
To: <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] WG Update


> David,
>  Are you saying that the possibility of recover uppercase
> of Latin, Greek or Cyrillic is not a useful feature from
> deployment of IDN?
>
> Liana
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 07:33:06 +0100 David Hopwood
> <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > Erin Chen wrote:
> > > As in the 2. General Requirements of 2.3 Canonicalization
> > >
> > > [21] In order to retain backward compatibility with the current
> > DNS,
> > > the service MUST retain the case-insensitive comparison for
> > US-ASCII
> > > as specified in RFC 1035. For example, Latin capital letter A
> > (U+0041)
> > > MUST match Latin small letter a (U+0061). Unicode Technical Report
> > #21
> > > describes some of the issues with case mapping. Case-insensitivity
> > for
> > > non US-ASCII MUST be discussed in the protocol proposal.
> > >
> > > I recommend modify the last line "MUST be discussed" to be
> > > "MUST be provided", as to be " Case-insensitivity for non US-ASCII
> > MUST be
> > > provided in the protocol proposal"
> >
> > I disagree. As it happens, all of the proposals provide
> > case-insensitivity
> > for non-US-ASCII, but it is *not* a requirement. The protocol would
> > work
> > fine and would be perfectly acceptable to users without it. We
> > should be
> > clear about the difference between features that are *desirable* (in
> > this
> > case for consistency), and *required* features.
> >
> > In particular, preservation of case is wholly unnecessary, IMHO.
> > [21] is perfectly OK as it is (although much of the rest of the
> > requirements
> > draft is not; I'll discuss that in another post).
> >
> >
> > <tsenglm@csie.ncu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > > The TC/SC equivalent class is always conceptually described by the
> > > similar properties of  case in ASCII characters, ...
> >
> > No, it is not. TC/SC folding is an entirely separate issue to case
> > folding. As I've pointed out before, it is counterproductive to try
> > to
> > argue by an analogy that a consensus of the WG does not accept.
> >
> > - --
> > David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
> >
> > Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
> > RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66
> > 15 01
> > Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I
> > revoke a
> > public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key
> > has been
> > seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see
> > www.fipr.org/rip
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: 2.6.3i
> > Charset: noconv
> >
> > iQEVAwUBO7/2zTkCAxeYt5gVAQGvZQgAvWfiHcqPPog2htBBOhtLUXMP4dOSVI5/
> > F03Wk4oeYhyr32wMhjbDDsxCwdroAdhExEiAwLt31qpg7dSuyglzM3VILxznvvVu
> > /inTb1oari9SnGjwu2hDKlTs5lfeTHKiSsdm5D1xAwaUo6fA8RW0gaDWv20elt74
> > fm+WmS+3QHRxM4Y6MdCtjLpJdC0ywZUyDo/wfM9iMNsc7WHWzfWCE37xFQYH9nsJ
> > zvRxfzV9AaEkV0ZtxBJWRknP1E59Gv3zGBi60WHX21/1ZykGu/6e6pk8OZ+CEHx4
> > Ock7UKySbpkqXOncpCwJVSEdJyW+Y0hqfSCwzmlRXl5JIOpCoENHvQ==
> > =oyij
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
>