From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 01:30:21 CST
At 15:23 -0700 2007-05-04, Douglas Davidson wrote:
>Aren't there individuals in Japan with similar
>strong opinions as to how to write their names,
>regarding as error what Unicode regards as mere
Maybe. But Han isn't Latin, and the Universal
Character Set is devoid of purity.
>Adding new characters for the special purpose of
>names risks interfering with the ordinary
>functions of searching, sorting, casing, etc.
>for ordinary text.
The example of name was an example. It is not the
ONLY reason this character is being added.
>If he insists on the new character, Peter risks
>becoming known as PETER WEI? with no glyph to
>anyone who does not have the proper font; on the
>other hand, official records are likely to
>regard him as PETER WEISS whether he likes it or
One expects core fonts to include the character in due course.
>Considering the all-around experience, might it
>not be better to regard uppercase ß as a glyph
>variant of SS rather than a new character?
Just as ß is not a glyph variant of ss, so [ß] is not a glyph variant of SS.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 06:08:25 CST