Re: [idn] Re: stringprep and unassigned code points

["Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@imc.org>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: stringprep and unassigned code points


> At 12:58 PM +0900 10/31/01, Soobok Lee wrote:
> >People are familiar with case-insensitiveness in hostnames in URL.
> >They often type in WWW.AOL.COM with CAPSLOCK ON inadvertantly even
> >after they saw lowercased advertized hostnames and
> >have been successful so far in reaching the right webhost for
> >LDH ones and will be so even for future Cyrillic IDN ones.
> 
> How is this statement at all relevant to the topic being discussed? 
> Are there any scripts that are being encoded in future versions of 
> ISO 10646 that will be affected by CAPS LOCK?


Switching cases in Greek/Cyrillic IME need CAPS LOCK. Don't they?
New bicameral script IME's behavior on CAPS LOCK  may resemble them
as a natural choice.
 

> 
> Please note that the discussion we are having is about future 
> characters and scripts being encoded *that also have nameprep 
> mappings to other characters*. If future characters are included 
> without any mappings, everything works just as the user would expect.

X and Y  always look identical in the case of NFC X->Y . And,
script IME (or platform) often has its own preferred form between X or Y.
That's often beyond the choice and capability of the end user.
I am not sure how many NFC will be defined for new script.
But that theory will work if any.


Soobok Lee

> 
> What Yves brought up is only valid if there are mappings; that will 
> have to be explained better in the stringprep document.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium
>