From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 01:40:48 CST
At 00:18 +0200 2007-05-05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Not if I get the drift of questions B3 and C3, 8, 9, and 10 in
>the submitted form correctly. Of course it would help if they
>are answered correctly and competently by the submitter.
As the one person who has to deal with that
wretched form more than anyone else does, I
assure you that its content never, ever trumps
the content of the proposal.
> > Adding a new character to Unicode does not generally cause any
> > problems for older implementations -- particularly when, as in
> > this case, the character does not really change any existing
> > case mappings.
>They want the ß as lower case of their fictitious "uppercase ß".
Oh, Frank, get a grip. It's not fictitious. You just don't like it.
>Once they have that they could claim that it's kind of odd if
>toupper( tolower( "uppercase ß" )) = toupper( ß ) = SS, and that
>it was "always intended" (giving the Duden 1919 source) to have
>toupper( ß ) = "uppercase ß".
The minority orthography would have to become an
official majority orthography for that to happen.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 06:08:32 CST