Re: [idn] WG Update

["tsenglm@????.??.tw" <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <DougEwell2@cs.com>


> In a message dated 2001-10-09 20:20:32 Pacific Daylight Time,
> tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw writes:
>
> >  UTF-8 can keep the case of ASCII
> >  but can not preserve the case of non-ASCII . But now AMC-ACE-Z can
preserve
> >  one case of non-ASCII , it is an excellent improvements over UTF-8 . We
> >  should consider the specification based on new technology ---AMC-ACE-Z.
>
> I have generally stayed out of the UTF-8 versus ACE debate, but the above
> statement cannot go unpunished.  UTF-8 is a character encoding scheme for
> *every single code point* in ISO/IEC 10646.  That means every character,
> upper- and lower-case, in every script, has its own UTF-8 representation.
>
> To say that UTF-8 does not preserve case distinctions is complete
nonsense.
> It is the nameprep stage that folds away case distinctions (for better or
> worse).
                 If  you mean casing of  Latin characters , you may be
right. but you can try the characters in (u+F94D , u+6dda), (u+F950, u+7e37)
that are compatibility CJK ideograph characters in www.unicode.org . If
these characters are mapped to single one code point like the  case mapping
in ASCII , you can not use UTF-8 to do case-like-insensitive comparation and
to keep case-prserving .  The difference come from the relative to LDH-DNS .
                I don not against UTF-8 , but AMC-ACE-Z  can support
case-code- mapping and case-preserving-after-code-mapping and
case-sensitive-comparation all coexisted. It is an intergreted properties in
LDH-DNS.

L.M.tseng