Re: T.61 -> Unicode conversion

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>> Can it happen that a Modify operation contains an UTF-8 value which
>> according to Appendix A does not match an existing value in the entry,
>> but which the server stores as a T.61 value which does match an existing
>> value?
>
> I believe [Models] prevents this through its (values must
> be different, values must be preserved) requirements.

There have been quite a lot of disputes about whether characters in
different character sets are equivalent or not, though I don't know if
that applies to T.61->Unicode mapping.  I do remember that the meaning
of some character combinations were redefined for T.61 (not in relation
to Unicode, I think).  Something about an umlaut-like mark which should
or shouldn't mean umlaut?

Anyway, implementors who disagreed about this would get different
results, and maybe different results from the Appendix.  In particular
if they have implemented T.61->Unicode(LDAP) first, and add stringprep
later.

-- 
Hallvard