Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:

> I agree with Bear that case-mappings are poorly defined on single
> codepoints.

You guys still need to get your terminology straight: The case mapping
is perfectly well-defined---you just don't like the definition.  That
I can sympathize with, but the whole case-folding issue doesn't have
any easy solutions, as you point out.

What the SRFI draft gives you is access to the info in
UnicodeData.txt.  Whether that's useful or not depends on the
application.  Anything beyond that is certainly desirable to have (but
probably not in the core language), but it's a much harder nut to
crack, API-wise and implementation-wise, which is why we're punting on
this for now.

For my applications, the case mappings defined in the draft are plenty
useful---they're sure useful well beyond ASCII.  Restricting them to
ASCII would make them very significantly less useful to me.  (What
with me being a German an all.  And BTW, no, the eszet issue is not
usually a problem in practice---it sure doesn't keep the case mappings
from being useful.)

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla