[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: strings draft
Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> writes:
> No. The c.l.s. idea is to make mandatory the case mappings of the
> standard procedures for the portable character set only.
> Specifically, 'a..z' must map to 'A..Z' (and vice versa) and that's
> all that's required.
This gets the Turkish I Problem wrong then.
In Turkish, i-with-dot capitalizes to I-with-dot. If you map i->I,
then you get this wrong, for Turkish.
> > I do not object to a Scheme that chooses to do this. But your draft
> > seems to exclude a Scheme that does *best* Unicode practice, which is
> > not to shove any details under the rug.
> No, the draft says that for _linguistic_ processing, the standard
> procedures for case mapping are unsuitable. We need a SRFI to
> introduce _new_ procedures implementing "Unicode best practice" for
> linguistic processing.
Sure. But since we can easily make a draft that doesn't have this
problem at all (by dropping case-mapping as a char-by-char thing
entirely) we can fix it.
> > If I have misunderstood, can you please point to something more
> > specific for me to read (or reproduce the relevant arguments here)?
> Uh... will the above do or do you have a specific question?
The above does fine. :)