Re: [idn] Re: IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete?

[Dan Oscarsson <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>]

>
>I don't see where the problem lies.  Yes, U+00C5 and U+212B do look
>identical; the existence of pairs like this is the main reason why
>canonical equivalence tables exist. 

They look identical because it is the same character. As Dough said
they exist because a legacy encoding. Personally I think Unicode
should never have allowed them to have more than one code point.

While there is not doubt about the above, I am not sure that
the nameprep specification that 00DF (small letter sharp s) should
be matted to "ss". I am not sure how Germans handle this character.
Do they always replace double s with it? Or only on some special words?
If they do not generally do this, the mapping should not be done.
It is somewhat like the fact that the Greek version of latin A is
not mapped to the Roman version of latin A. Even though their origin
is the same latin A and look alike.
While "small letter sharp s" looks like "small letter beta", there are
no similarities between double s and "small letter sharp s". So why not
let "small letter sharp s" remain that and be a distinctive character
in a domain name. I assume Germans use it to write German words. Not
to replace double s in non-German names.

   Dan