From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 13:15:47 CST
On May 4, 2007, at 2:53 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>> No argument there. There *shouldn't* be such a thing as capital
>> ß. But Unicode is descriptive and not prescriptive. Obviously,
>> people are using this misbegotten character, so it needs to have a
>> code point.
> Or are they using this misbegotten glyph variant, in which case it
> needs to have appropriate glyph level activation?
> It seems to me to be begging the question to assume that it is a
It is a character, I think. To assume that it is an uppercase SS
ligature is to assume that an uppercase long S exists -- and we have
absolutely *no* evidence for that at all. So I think it's begging
the question to assume that it is a ligature. Uppercase ß is
attested, if grudgingly so. Uppercase long s is not attested at all!
> John Hudson
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 04 2007 - 13:17:33 CST