Re: [idn] Re: Agenda Item for next UTC: Normalizing Case Mapping

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 12:31 AM 2/19/00 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>To say U+7535 U+90AE '.' U+53F0 U+6E7E != U+96FB U+90F5 '.' U+81FA U+7063 is
>as good as saying email.tw != EMAIL.TW.

Could you explain why? I'm looking at the code charts, and U+7535 looks 
nothing like U+96FB; U+90AE looks only somewhat like U+90F5 (but is 
completely distinguishable). If you are saying "people might be as likely 
to write U+7535 U+90AE as they are U+96FB U+90F5 for the same word", that's 
similar to saying "people might write Duerst for Dürst". What they see on a 
display (paper or computer) is not confusing here.

>But why should UC bother with Chinese 'case' folding? Afterall, this is a
>problem unique to DNS and we should let it be handled it in DNS aliasing via
>DNAME and CNAME, e.g
>
>U+96FB U+90F5 '.' U+81FA U+7063 IN DNAME U+7535 U+90AE '.' U+53F0 U+6E7E

That is a local decision by the administrator for the domain in question (I 
can't tell which one you are saying is the base here).

>I agreed this is not 'case folding' as one would normally associate with the
>meaning of 'case'. But the problems are as real as I = dotless i.

The example you give here sounds like a problem of language synonyms, not 
one of script properties, which is what case is. Have I misinterpreted the 
example you gave?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium