local mappings

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, January 26, 2009 8:50 AM -0500 Andrew Sullivan 
<ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 05:36:42PM -0500, John C Klensin
> wrote:
>
>> the unsophisticated)?    If we do lower-case, but continue to
>> ban compatibility characters and the other odd cases that
>> surprise those who don't know what is going on, does that
>> help us significantly with the compatibility and astonishment
>> situations that are really important?
>
> That sounds to me like a good way forward, assuming that what
> we say as a result is something other than the current "local
> mappings that make sense" language.  That current language is
> laudable in intention but almost certainly a recipe for
> disaster in a protocol.

My unspoken assumption was that we would either completely 
remove the "local mapping" text or that we would figure out how 
to limit it to truly exceptional and unusual cases, such the 
the dotless "i" situation.   Ken's note contains some hints 
about how that might be done, but the WG would need to sort 
that out.

> I think your new approach could be very fruitful.  I guess we
> need to spend some time trying to work out exactly how it
> would work, but I see Patrik is already suggesting some
> terminological distinctions that will be helpful.

yep.

   john