Re: [idn] Editorial comments on stringprep

["Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>]

For most case-insensitive binary comparison, the recommendation is to
use case folding, as defined in the Standard. For more info, see
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr21/.

Mark

—————

Γνῶθι σαυτόν — Θαλῆς
[For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr]

http://www.macchiato.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrik Fältström" <paf@cisco.com>
To: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>; "Doug Ewell"
<dewell@adelphia.net>
Cc: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 02:17
Subject: Re: [idn] Editorial comments on stringprep


--On 2002-05-04 10.02 +0200 Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
wrote:

> Hmm - I don't recall if Patrik has some additional arguments for why
> lowercase is better in his plenary presentation in Minneapolis.

Historically, Unicode Consortium has always stated that mapping to
lowercase were more consistent and better than mapping to uppercase.
At
least for Unicode before version 2. Don't remember any exact reasons,
but
we can dig it up if you want us to.

There are also a number of codepoints which are lowercase which
doesn't
have uppercase versions.

Last, some codepoints (like the german sharp-s, ß) turns to "SS" in
uppercase, and my guess is (with my limited knowledge of German, only
2
years of studies) that one when comparing don't want that
similarities.


Anyway, my point is that previously UTC has always recommended mapping
to
lowercase, and people seems to be happy with it.

And, personally, I rather see bq-asdqwe123 than BQ-ASDQWE the few
times I
hope I see a domain name used in protocols natively in its ACE
encoding.

    paf