From: unicode (unicode@i18n.ca)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2008 - 21:25:05 CDT
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> The later proposal more correctly identified it as the
> uppercase form of the SHARP S letter (esszet) and disconnected
> the proposal from the untenable position that it was directly related
> to "SS". As David Starner surmised, the casing stability issue
> was dealt with by simply including no mapping from U+00DF to the
> new uppercase character.
>
>
Do I understand correctly that the special casing table will continue to
contain the mapping from SHARP S (U+00DF) to "SS" as below:
# The German es-zed is special--the normal mapping is to SS. # Note: the
titlecase should never occur in practice. It is equal to
titlecase(uppercase(<es-zed>))
00DF; 00DF; 0053 0073; 0053 0053; # LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S
when there is now an official uppercase version of SHARP-S?
I mean: great for stability, but when one runs upper(0xDF) what is the
correct outcome?
Will we we need an exception or override property to the special casing
property?
The current result of upper(0xDF) in SQL is as follows:
Oracle: "SS"
SQL Server: 0xDF (still lowercase!)
will they both have to change?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2008 - 21:28:18 CDT