From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2008 - 20:15:12 CDT
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:43 PM, David Starner <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Yes. I wish I could offer you a link to the proposal,
> Wikipedia rules: http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/N3227.pdf
That's the *later* proposal -- the one that succeeded in WG2
The *earlier* proposal from 2004 -- the one that didn't succeed --
That document gave copious evidence of the existence of the uppercase
glyph -- nobody doubted that. But it didn't deal with the
technical issues of how to handle the casing. And it
conflated the typographical issues and the encoding issues
in a way that didn't convince the UTC that a character encoding
was warranted. The conclusion of the document was:
"The proposed Latin Capital letter Double S ... should become
encoded to enable a hitherto unsolved bug in German typography
become fixed. ..."
Well, encoding characters isn't generally about resolving bugs
in German (or any other) typography -- those are font issues.
It took better argumentation in the later proposal to convince
the character encoding committees that this character deserved
encoding *despite* the resultant confusion in German
implementation about casing relations that were sure to follow.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2008 - 20:17:43 CDT