From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen@marnen.org)
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 16:23:47 CST
On May 4, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 13:36 -0700 2007-05-04, John Hudson wrote:
>
>> But the reader would read e as an error in place of é. He would
>> not read SS as an error in place of the uppercase eszett, because
>> orthographically the SS is correct and the latter is a glyph
>> variant of it.
>
> Dieter Weiss and Peter Weiß may each consider that there is only
> one way to correctly spell their respective names. Despite
> normative German orthography, Peter may not prefer to be uppercased
> as PETER WEISS; he may in fact consider it an error. We cannot do
> anything about normative German orthography, because it is not in
> our remit. But we should not deny Peter the character he needs to
> write his name.
<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>
I tend to agree with you here, Michael, but a question presents
itself: are we really denying Peter the character he needs? Peter
can consider WEISS an error if he likes, but that *is* normative
orthography. 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?
> --
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
Best,
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser marnen@marnen.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 04 2007 - 16:24:54 CST