Re: "Difficult Characters" draft

"Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch> Fri, 02 May 1997 16:20 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa26733; 2 May 97 12:20 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14628; 2 May 97 12:20 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA05611 for uri-out; Fri, 2 May 1997 12:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA05602 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Fri, 2 May 1997 12:00:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from josef.ifi.unizh.ch (josef.ifi.unizh.ch [130.60.48.10]) by mocha.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21156 for <uri@bunyip.com>; Fri, 2 May 1997 12:00:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from enoshima.ifi.unizh.ch by josef.ifi.unizh.ch with SMTP (PP) id <15198-0@josef.ifi.unizh.ch>; Fri, 2 May 1997 17:58:32 +0200
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 17:58:31 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
cc: URI mailing list <uri@bunyip.com>
Subject: Re: "Difficult Characters" draft
In-Reply-To: <3369AC9E.281F@parc.xerox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970502175231.245j-100000@enoshima>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2 May 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Other issues:
> The bidi issues for RLT languages in conjunction with
> normal punctuation used in and around identifiers. (Will
> the identifiers present themselves 'correctly' without
> these characters in all cases?)

That in an important problem, but should go into a separate draft,
because it is basically about display, not about input.


> Using UCS in identifiers that are normally "case insensitive"
> in ASCII, and the issues, e.g., similar upper-case forms,
> the role of accents and equivalence.

With "the role of accents", do you mean the French case, where
accents may be removed on uppercasing?


> I think "white space" or spacing characters in general
> need to be addressed.

Yes, definitely. They all need to be prohibited.


> You need to decide whether you're doing canonicalization/normalization
> or just equivalence.

I already decided, with the normalization algorithms in the draft.
But I guess I need to state it more clearly.


> Equivalence is probably easier to define,
> and less politically sensitive, even though not as useful.

I think equivalence is not useful, because it puts the burdens on
software that otherwise doesn't have any clue (and doesn't have
to have a clue) about internationalization.
Normalization is politically sensitive, but we either get
something working or something useless.

Regards,	Martin.