Re: Uppercase ß is coming? (U+1E9E)

From: Frank Ellermann (
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 04:38:05 CST

  • Next message: Frank Ellermann: "Re: Uppercase is coming? (U+1E9E)"

    John Hudson wrote:

    > it was Frank Ellermann who was comparing the apples to the oranges.

    Actually I compared the WEI[SZ] tombstone presented in the evidence
    with a hypothetical tombstone GROSZES@ESZETT.INVALID

    > signalling desired ligature glyph display using ZWJ made more sense.
    > This at least is comparing apples to apples

    Yes, but you propose S‍S for &SZlig; instead of S‍Z, and IMO
    that's a bad idea. For obvious reasons the characters s + z are not
    used for other purposes, unlike s + s, and if you want something that
    unambiguously indicates &SZlig; why not take S‍Z ?

    For the (real) old long-s z ligature shown in the evidence I'd take
    them as they are if I'd want to preserve a distinction from u+00DF:

    u+017F u+200D u+0225 (or is u+017F u+200D u+007A better ?)

    FRom there I'd get (surprise, there's no capital long-s):

    u+017F u+200D u+0224 or maybe u+017F u+200D u+005A

    Or eliminating the u+017F for title case this could be:

    u+0053 u+200D u+0224 vs. u+0053 u+200D u+005A

    I can't say if u+0224 or u+0225 are what's needed, sticking to S + Z
    might be more straight forward: u+0053 u+200D u+005A. Voila, no
    "new character" needed, told you so... ;-)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 04:45:31 CST