Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

strings draft Tom Lord (22 Jan 2004 05:11 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (22 Jan 2004 09:46 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (22 Jan 2004 17:45 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (23 Jan 2004 05:03 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 00:45 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (23 Jan 2004 20:01 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 03:26 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 04:31 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 04:49 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 19:01 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 22:15 UTC)
Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 09:58 UTC)
Strings, one last detail. bear (30 Jan 2004 21:12 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Shiro Kawai (30 Jan 2004 21:43 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (31 Jan 2004 00:27 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (31 Jan 2004 20:25 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (31 Jan 2004 20:56 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (01 Feb 2004 02:28 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (01 Feb 2004 02:58 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (01 Feb 2004 07:53 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (26 Jan 2004 19:04 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 13:13 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 13:41 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 23:38 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Ken Dickey (26 Jan 2004 19:40 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Shiro Kawai (27 Jan 2004 05:10 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Tom Lord (27 Jan 2004 05:37 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char bear (27 Jan 2004 08:35 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (27 Jan 2004 08:32 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Ken Dickey (27 Jan 2004 06:50 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (27 Jan 2004 19:06 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (22 Jan 2004 19:05 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:06 UTC)
READ-OCTET (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (23 Jan 2004 06:00 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (23 Jan 2004 07:04 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (23 Jan 2004 07:20 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 00:15 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 01:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 02:35 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (26 Jan 2004 02:35 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 03:01 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 03:00 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 03:27 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 04:57 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 04:57 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (24 Jan 2004 02:21 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:09 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:42 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:44 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 03:07 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:04 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 03:29 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:42 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 02:34 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:42 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 03:02 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 02:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:13 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 03:18 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (23 Jan 2004 19:31 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 02:21 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (06 Feb 2004 23:30 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (06 Feb 2004 23:33 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (09 Feb 2004 01:45 UTC)
specifying source encoding (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (09 Feb 2004 02:51 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (09 Feb 2004 03:39 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:12 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 03:28 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:44 UTC)
Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (23 Jan 2004 08:07 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] bear (23 Jan 2004 17:55 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 18:50 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Per Bothner (23 Jan 2004 18:56 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 20:39 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Per Bothner (23 Jan 2004 20:57 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 21:57 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 20:20 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 21:22 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 22:52 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (24 Jan 2004 06:48 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 18:55 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (24 Jan 2004 19:34 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 22:02 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (23 Jan 2004 12:53 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 23:35 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (24 Jan 2004 16:10 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (25 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (25 Jan 2004 00:00 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (25 Jan 2004 07:29 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 16:53 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (27 Jan 2004 00:44 UTC)

Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx 23 Jan 2004 03:04 UTC

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

Thomas