From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2003 - 21:55:58 EST
Kenneth Whistler
> Correcting myself:
> > Note that none of the 3 sets of equivalence classes violates
> > *canonical* equivalence, because none of the 8 sequences involved
> > is canonically equivalent to any other. In other words, no matter
> > which of the 3 approaches you take to case folding, in no instance
> > are you claiming that canonically equivalent sequences are to be
> > interpreted differently.
>
> Actually, dotted I *is* canonically equivalent to <I, dot above>
> (I overlooked that when compiling the summary.)
And I had the same conclusion in my previous long analysis, except
that I did not forgot this canonical equivalence.
Except also that I used another notation to compare case foldings
and case mappings.
I also concluded that using combining dots with i's was a big
hack, and that this hack was introduced only in the Full
case mappings, just to confuse implementations, and make the
life even worse for programmers that expect a correct behavior
with case folding.
Morality: I don't use now case folding which preserves
canonical equivalence with a hack,
but only lowercase(uppercase()) which respects canonical
equivalence, and is more coherent for full text indexing,
secured identification, cases-insensitive file naming...
__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside
Newsletters for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 22:38:04 EST