Re: Uppercase ß is coming? (U+1E9E)

From: John Hudson (
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 12:42:32 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: Plum, Plumb, and Plume -- was: Re: Uppercase=?iso-8859-1?q?=DFiscoming?(U+1E9E)"

    Adam Twardoch wrote:

    > Today, "ß" is no more a ligature of "ſs" than "ä" is a ligature of "ae".
    > The transition process from "ae" to "ä" has been completed about 200
    > years ago, and the transition process between "ſs" to "ß" is happening
    > now. Encoding the uppercase "ä" as "A ZWJ <sups> E" (or something like
    > that) would make as little sense as encoding the uppercase "ß" as "S ZWJ
    > S".

    > I strongly believe that "SS" is an anachronic, still-in-use but
    > slowly-to-vanish poor man’s solution to write the uppercase "ß".

    I suspect, and indeed hope, that you are right. But this is why I consider the proposed
    uppercase eszett a 'half-begotten' character. The proposal is explicit that the standard
    orthographic casing for ß is SS, and the new character is proposed on the understanding
    that it will not interfere with existing implementations of that standard casing.

    I was mainly joking when I earlier suggested that maybe we should encode a new lowercase
    character too, with a clean case mapping to the new uppercase eszett. But having a single
    lowercase character with two different uppercase mappings, one currently standard and
    enshrined in existing casing rules and implementations, one that might one day become
    standard and require some kind of overriding implementation, seems to me a bit of a
    standardisation and software development nightmare.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Gulf Islands, BC
    We say our understanding measures how things are,
    and likewise our perception, since that is how we
    find our way around, but in fact these do not measure.
    They are measured.   -- Aristotle, Metaphysics

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 07 2007 - 12:44:01 CDT