From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 09:55:18 CST
At 11:46 -0400 2007-05-05, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
>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 never said that the grounds for encoding it was
only preference in the spelling of personal names.
>I rephrase the question: does Unicode, as it
>stands before this proposal, really deny Peter
>the character he needs?
Yes, it really does.
>>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
>Yes. But if he departs from standard spelling,
>perhaps he shouldn't expect a standard encoding
>to contain the characters he needs.
Dotted consonants are no longer used in the
standard spelling of Irish, but they are encoded
>>>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?
You invented LATIN UPPERCASE O TYPE TWO. But
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S is nothing new, and
has been around for a century at least.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 09:59:28 CST