From: Frank Ellermann (nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de)
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 04:38:05 CST
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... ;-)
Frank
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 04:45:31 CST