follow-up edits from PR #641

[cportele]

There were still some outstanding comments/edits from the discussion in PR #641:

• Add explanatory text (Issue-630: Changes to define the "CASEI" function for supporting case-insensitive string comparisons. #641 (comment))
• Removed definition of "collation" - it was not used in the text and it is not necessary to introduce the term (Issue-630: Changes to define the "CASEI" function for supporting case-insensitive string comparisons. #641 (comment))
• Add "unicode normalization" as a term (Issue-630: Changes to define the "CASEI" function for supporting case-insensitive string comparisons. #641 (comment))
• Add "unicode case folding" as a term (Issue-630: Changes to define the "CASEI" function for supporting case-insensitive string comparisons. #641 (comment))
• Correct examples (Issue-630: Changes to define the "CASEI" function for supporting case-insensitive string comparisons. #641 (comment))

[cportele]

Another question is whether it should be "arguments" in the JSON representation of a function or "args" (like for the operators).

[pvretano]

@cportele looks good ... go ahead and merge if you like.

[pvretano]

@cportele about "arguments" or "args", we should be consistent across the board I think. Besides, "args" is shorter!

[cportele]

OK, I have changed to "args" everywhere.

[cportele]

@pvretano - Before merging, there is still the following note below requirement 9 that needs to be resolved:

The references in D need to be verified. Also need to have some discussion about NFC (cacnonically-composed form) or NFD (canonically decomposed form). I think the correct thing is to say that ACCENTI() must do NFC …​ but I need to verify.

[pvretano]

Hmm ... why do we need to say anything about NFD or NFC? As long as one or the other is applied consistently in the implementation then code points should be comparable ... no?

[cportele]

I guess so, but it was you who wrote that note :)

[pvretano]

@cportele yeah because I was not sure but on further reflection I'm having second thoughts about getting into that level of detail. Perhaps we can discuss at today's meeting.