Interesting. I've come to basically the opposite conclusion and find case insensitivity to be counter intuitive. "Foo" and "foo" are not the same set of ascii characters; why should they map to the same thing?
"Dog" and "dog" are the same word, they are read the same, and pronounced the same. "D" and "d" are the same letter of the English alphabet, an alphabet with 26 characters not 52 characters. Why should they map to different things just because of some implementation limit behind the scenes in a computer?
Why should the ASCII table be the defining characteristic, over and above the way humans have used English for decades? ASCII "Foo" and UTF-16 "Foo" are not the same set of bytes, should they map to different things? "Foo" and "Foo" are not displayed with the same set of pixels, should they map to different things? "Foo" and "Foo" are not stored in the same memory address, nor were they typed in the same number of milliseconds over the same USB packets, why should the ASCII table internal detail matter and those details not matter?
Why should the ASCII table be the defining characteristic, over and above the way humans have used English for decades? ASCII "Foo" and UTF-16 "Foo" are not the same set of bytes, should they map to different things? "Foo" and "Foo" are not displayed with the same set of pixels, should they map to different things? "Foo" and "Foo" are not stored in the same memory address, nor were they typed in the same number of milliseconds over the same USB packets, why should the ASCII table internal detail matter and those details not matter?