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

From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 16:23:47 CST

  • Next message: Frank Ellermann: "Re: Uppercase is coming? (U+1E9E)"

    On May 4, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 13:36 -0700 2007-05-04, John Hudson wrote:
    >> But the reader would read e as an error in place of . He would
    >> not read SS as an error in place of the uppercase eszett, because
    >> orthographically the SS is correct and the latter is a glyph
    >> variant of it.
    > Dieter Weiss and Peter Wei may each consider that there is only
    > one way to correctly spell their respective names. Despite
    > normative German orthography, Peter may not prefer to be uppercased
    > as PETER WEISS; he may in fact consider it an error. We cannot do
    > anything about normative German orthography, because it is not in
    > our remit. But we should not deny Peter the character he needs to
    > write his name.

    <devil's-advocate 1>
    So should we encode the symbol for Prince too? After all, we
    shouldn't deny Prince the character he needs to write his name
    either! :)
    </devil's-advocate 1>

    I tend to agree with you here, Michael, but a question presents
    itself: are we really denying Peter the character he needs? Peter
    can consider WEISS an error if he likes, but that *is* normative
    orthography. If I want Laibow-Koser to be uppercased as LAIBOW-
    K9SER, that doesn't mean we suddenly need a LATIN UPPERCASE O TYPE
    TWO that looks suspiciously like DIGIT NINE, does it?

    > --
    > Michael Everson *


    Marnen Laibow-Koser

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 04 2007 - 16:24:54 CST