> From: xxxxxx@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

    > Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> writes:

    > >     > This is inconsistent with best Unicode practice, thanks to the
    > >     > "Turkish I Problem".

    > > Actually, I _think_ it works out fine.  Please see the corresponding
    > > threads on comp.lang.scheme.

    > My understanding is that the c.l.s idea is simply to use the generic
    > Unicode case mapping functions.

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.

    > 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.

    > 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?

-t