Re: Uppercase is coming? (U+1E9E)

From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen@marnen.org)
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 09:45:09 CST

  • Next message: Dominikus Scherkl: "Re: Uppercase ß is coming? (U+1E9E)"

    On May 4, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

    > Andrew West wrote:
    >
    >> Well you obviously haven't taken a look at the front cover of Der
    >> Groe Duden (Leipzig, 1957, 1960, 1964) -- Figs.9 and 10 in
    >> <http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/N3227.pdf>
    >
    > I did, and the number of "capital " presented in this memo is zero.
    > If I'd write GROSZES@ESZETT.INVALID on a tombstone the "@" is still
    > an "@" and not a "capital @".

    Wrong. There is at least one clear example, in the picture that says
    "MASSEMA[]E...Massemae". The character which I have here
    represented by [] is clearly meant to be a capital ; it's of a
    different shape than the lowercase in the same font.

    >
    >> Have you read the proposal ?
    >
    > Yes, it's irresponsible and harmful,

    No argument there. There *shouldn't* be such a thing as capital .
    But Unicode is descriptive and not prescriptive. Obviously, people
    are using this misbegotten character, so it needs to have a code point.

    > misrepresenting an ordinary
    > in various contexts of capital letters as a fictitious "capital ".

    Certainly some of the examples in this proposal do that.

    >
    > The interesting glyph on these pages is the old long-s z ligature,
    > not the (roughly) long-s Z ligature used as "". Everybody is free
    > to use a slighly larger version of lower case letters or a slightly
    > smaller version of upper case letters for some nice visual effects,
    > but that's no new character.

    Well, yes it is. This is not merely a font difference.

    [...]
    > Sure, existing implementations will have to be upgraded.

    No. Adding a new character to Unicode does not generally cause any
    problems for older implementations -- particularly when, as in this
    case, the character does not really change any existing case mappings.

    > As a kind
    > of conspiracy trying to get rid of de-DE + de-AT in favour of de-CH
    > it would be amusing.

    Huh? de-CH doesn't even use .
    >
    > Frank

    Best,

    -- 
    Marnen Laibow-Koser
    marnen@marnen.org
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 04 2007 - 09:47:27 CST