I had this discussion a few days back. Fact is that 03.38 specifies uppercase cedille Fact is that Sony Ericsson show uppercase cedille Nokia shows lowercase cedille however.
The spec is whatever the spec is. its in there since many many years and was never changed. The change I did in kannel is to accept upper and lower case and translate it on outgoing to 0x09 but on incoming translate it to uppercase. This at least means that if someone submits lowercase cedille, it gets mapped to c cedille (whatever the phone displays) instead of simply a c or a question mark. On 17.03.2010, at 10:34, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > Folks, > > I always believed that Ç was in GSM 7 bit alphabet, but not ç (it > is stupid, but that's beyond the point). > > But I was pointed to that document recently: > > http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ETSI/GSM0338.TXT > > excerpts: > > # This table contains the data the Unicode Consortium has on how > # ETSI GSM 03.38 7-bit default alphabet characters map into Unicode. > # This mapping is based on ETSI TS 100 900 V7.2.0 (1999-07), with > # a correction of 0x09 to *small* c-cedilla, instead of *capital* > # C-cedilla. > # > (...) > # > # The ETSI GSM 03.38 specification shows an uppercase C-cedilla > # glyph at 0x09. This may be the result of limited display > # capabilities for handling characters with descenders. However, the > # language coverage intent is clearly for the lowercase c-cedilla, as > shown > # in the mapping below. The mapping for uppercase C-cedilla is shown > # in a commented line in the mapping table. > > I believe it is relevant to Kannel because there is to and from > GSM 7-bit alphabet conversions in Kannel, of course, for MO/MT > transmissions. In Kannel implementation, seemingly relevant > excerpts from gateway-1.4.3/gwlib/latin1_to_gsm.h include: > > /* 0xc7 */ 0x09, /* pc: NON PRINTABLE */ (Ç) > > and > > /* 0xe7 */ NRP, /* pc: NON PRINTABLE */ (ç) > > What do you think? Should both of these chars rather map to 0x09? > Have you ever seen a phone displaying ç from 0x09 from a GSM 7 > bit message (me never)? > > -- > Guillaume Cottenceau >
