[People were discussing whether one should do some case mappings before
doing normalization, or the other way, and whether the case mapping can be
naive or must account for what normalization will do/has done in order not
to break assumptions that the resulting string is both case-folded and
normalized. The normalization form used can be anything I believe, though in
the IETF context NFKC and NFC are the common ones.]
> > My guess is that case folding by no means guarantee that
> the output is
> > still normalized.
>
> Right, if you fold and then normalize, your string might not
> be properly
> folded anymore (which is why nameprep had to adjust the
> mapping table).
> Similarly, if you normalize and then fold, your string might not be
> properly normalized anymore. Either way, if you want a string to be
> both normalized and folded, you cannot naively apply normalization and
> case-folding (in either order), you need to tweak the mapping table to
> compensate for the interactions. The sentence quoted from
> UTR#21 above
> glosses over this problem. The problem exists (and has a solution) no
> matter which order you use.
>
> Does Mark Davis (the author of UTR#21) subscribe to this
> list? It would
> probably be helpful to get his thoughts on the matter.
You can always Cc: unicode@unicode.org for such questions. Which I am doing
now. Of course, we don't want to Cc: them all the time...
YA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 04 2001 - 22:00:43 EDT