Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>> Can someone explain to me why this new registry is a better solution
>> than referring to SpecialCasing.txt in the UCD?
>
> May be because there are tons of languages not covered in the UCD
> itself (the UCD just performs simple casing transforms)
The "initial" registry in the draft doesn't cover tons of languages
either, only Lithuanian, Turkish, and Azerbaijani, just like
SpecialCasing.txt. Indeed, it's just a recasting of a subset of the data
in SpecialCasing.txt. There doesn't seem to be any process for updating
the "initial" registry, which would seem necessary.
> But this could still be part of the CLDR project, to cover special
> casing rules (like the English titlecase rules, or the distinct French
> rules where less terms are capitalized) : special casing rules are
> effectively text transforms, and better described in LDML than just
> SpecialCasing.txt which is too much limited.
The authors don't seem to have intended this for a general-purpose
project like CLDR, but specifically for protocols where Stringprep would
be applied.
> Anyway, these two drafts, freely posted on the IETF, are not standards
> by themselves. And their scope is also very limited (mostly focusing
> on StringPrep for IDNA).
Even if Informational, it doesn't seem too helpful to me to define a new
mapping strategy, almost but not quite identical to Unicode's, and allow
the two to diverge over time for no obvious reason.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell Received on Fri Dec 07 2012 - 16:29:57 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Dec 07 2012 - 16:29:58 CST