Otto Stolz scripsit:
> The question must also be what price you have to pay, in other
> areas, for this optimazation of a particular operation.
Just so.
> Capitalizing rules are, to a large extent, language-specific.
I would rewrite this statement as "Capitalizing rules are,
to a small but non-negligible extent, language-specific.
Therefore, the Unicode case mappings are non-normative,
though generally believed to be useful."
> This means that
> - ISO 8859-3 (and probably other legacy) data cannot be easily
> converted to UCS:
Use of 8859-3 for Turkish is deprecated: 8859-9 (Latin-5) and its
Windows variant CP1254 are the most likely charsets.
> In English, lowercasing will not get the acronyms right; there may
> even be cases, where uppercase vs. lowercase spellings make a
> difference, e. g. a proper name, or an acronym, vs. an ordinary noun.
There would be quite a difference, also, between polish remover
and a Polish remover.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:43 EDT