This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> From: tb@xxxxxxxxxx (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > 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. Not quite, no. > In Turkish, i-with-dot capitalizes to I-with-dot. If you map i->I, > then you get this wrong, for Turkish. Did you actually read the c.l.s. post? > > > 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. Not really. Whether "char at a time" or "string at a time", `list' is not the (linguistically) ci equivalent of `LIST' in -TR locales. -t