UAX44: loose matching of symbolic values and the `is` prefix

[Mathias Bynens]

> On 7 Jun 2016, at 17:56, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> 
> Rather than changing the spec based on anecdotal evidence, […]
> 
> It seems irresponsible to assume now that nobody anywhere needs
> it.

What assumption are you talking about? Markus and Nova provided actual examples of implementations not following the spec, and so far no one has been able to provide even a single counter-example.

> There must have been some basis for including the "is" case in the first
> place.

Now *that* sounds like an assumption to me.