Re: Uppercase ▀ is coming? (U+1E9E)

From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen@marnen.org)
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 10:25:26 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Uppercase ▀ is coming? (U+1E9E)"

    On May 5, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 11:46 -0400 2007-05-05, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
    >> 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 never said that the grounds for encoding it was only preference
    > in the spelling of personal names.

    Fair enough. That was what you seemed to imply; I'm glad to know
    that this isn't the case.

    >
    >> I rephrase the question: does Unicode, as it stands before this
    >> proposal, really deny Peter the character he needs?
    >
    > Yes, it really does.

    It denies Peter the character he *wants*. I am still not convinced
    that it denies him the character he *needs* -- after all, unless the
    spelling standards change, WEISS is the recommended uppercase of Wei▀.

    >
    >>> 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 business.
    >>
    >> Yes. But if he departs from standard spelling, perhaps he
    >> shouldn't expect a standard encoding to contain the characters he
    >> needs.
    >
    > Dotted consonants are no longer used in the standard spelling of
    > Irish, but they are encoded nonetheless.

    The words "no longer" are the crux of your point here, I think.
    Dotted consonants are part of an older spelling standard, so they are
    needed to properly encode older texts (unless they were encoded as
    ligatures with H...but let's not go there :) ). So far as I can
    tell, [▀] has never been part of *any* spelling standard, and has
    been only an idiosyncrasy.

    Now, I think I still favor encoding it -- after all, there's no
    adequate way to represent it with what we have, and people certainly
    *are* using it in non-trivial numbers. But I thought that the
    arguments you advanced in this post were a little thin.

    >
    >>>> 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?
    >
    > You invented LATIN UPPERCASE O TYPE TWO. But LATIN CAPITAL LETTER
    > SHARP S is nothing new, and has been around for a century at least.

    OK, that's reasonable. I suppose if it caught on, we *might* need o -
    > 9...

    Best,

    -- 
    Marnen Laibow-Koser
    marnen@marnen.org
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 10:27:16 CST