Re: Uppercase ▀ is coming? (U+1E9E)

From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 09:46:57 CST

  • Next message: "RE:Uppercase▀iscoming?(U+1E9E)"

    On May 5, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 18:23 -0400 2007-05-04, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
    >> <devil's-advocate 1>
    >> So should we encode the symbol for Prince too? After all, we
    >> shouldn't deny Prince the character he needs to write his name
    >> either! :)
    >> </devil's-advocate 1>
    > This is not analogous to LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S and you know it.

    First of all, note the <devil's-advocate> there. 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 tend to agree with you here, Michael, but a question presents
    >> itself: are we really denying Peter the character he needs?
    > Not any longer. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S is now under ballot
    > for inclusion in the standard.

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

    >> Peter can consider WEISS an error if he likes, but that *is*
    >> normative orthography.
    > 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.

    >> 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?

    > --
    > Michael Everson *


    Marnen Laibow-Koser

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 09:48:04 CST