AW: AW: sharp s (Eszett)

Martin Duerst duerst at
Mon Mar 17 11:31:19 CET 2008

At 19:10 08/03/17, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Martin Duerst skrev:

>> The next example where to test this approach would be the issue
>> of the (Turkish,...) dotless i. My guess is that things would
>> work out fine (i.e. the concept of information loss would show
>> the desirability for having both dot-ful and dot-less 'i').
>We all know the set by heart by now - the sharp S, the capital letter I with dot above, the Greek small letter final sigma.
>Now, we CAN'T make uppercase I (without a dot) fold to lowercase dotless I, since that would break ASCII compatibility, so my guess for the dotless-i case is that we can't make that one work. YMMV.

My understanding was that the Turkish,... I/i was one of the main cases
that led to the separation of input mappings such as case foldings from
the protocol itself, to allow these input mappings to depend on locale.
I.e. a Turkish,... system would map 'I' to lowercase i without dot,
whereas on other systems, it would map simply to 'i'. If we can't get
that to work somehow, then I don't see the point of locale-dependency.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#       mailto:duerst at     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list