AW: AW: sharp s (Eszett)

Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at
Tue Mar 18 09:56:57 CET 2008

> > 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.

Well, while we cannot map uppercase I to lowercase dotless i...

Is it an absolute necessity to stick with case *folding*?

Why would not toLower (not specialised for Turkish) be viable
for IDN? That would keep/allow both lowercase sharp s and
lowercase dotless i (and even terminal sigma). A domain
name entered in uppercase form might not be ideally mapped to
lowercase, but is that necessarily expected?

	/kent k

More information about the Idna-update mailing list