From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 09:46:57 CST
On May 5, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 18:23 -0400 2007-05-04, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>> <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>
> This is not analogous to LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S and you know it.
First of all, note the <devil's-advocate> there. I think there is a
difference, but I am having trouble figuring out where it lies if
your case is the only grounds for inclusion of capital ▀.
>> I tend to agree with you here, Michael, but a question presents
>> itself: are we really denying Peter the character he needs?
> Not any longer. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S is now under ballot
> for inclusion in the standard.
I rephrase the question: does Unicode, as it stands before this
proposal, really deny Peter the character he needs?
>> Peter can consider WEISS an error if he likes, but that *is*
>> normative orthography.
> What the Innenministerium puts on his Ausweis is perhaps beyond his
> control, but what he prefers to send and receive in e-mail is his
Yes. But if he departs from standard spelling, perhaps he shouldn't
expect a standard encoding to contain the characters he needs.
>> 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?
> I'm not impressed by the analogy. Sorry.
And why not? Where is the difference? What am I doing that Peter is
not, or vice versa?
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser marneN@marnen.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 09:48:04 CST