Le mercredi 19 décembre 2012 22:23:15 UTC+1, Ian a écrit : > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, <wxjmfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes, it is correct (or can be considered as correct). > > > I do not wish to discuss the typographical problematic > > > of "Das Grosse Eszett". The web is full of pages on the > > > subject. However, I never succeeded to find an "official > > > position" from Unicode. The best information I found seem > > > to indicate (to converge), U+1E9E is now the "supported" > > > uppercase form of U+00DF. (see DIN). > > > > Is this link not official? > > > > http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=00DF > > > > That defines a full uppercase mapping to SS and a simple uppercase > > mapping to U+00DF itself, not U+1E9E. My understanding of the simple > > mapping is that it is not allowed to map to multiple characters, > > whereas the full mapping is so allowed. > > > > > What is bothering me, is more the implementation. The Unicode > > > documentation says roughly this: if something can not be > > > honoured, there is no harm, but do not implement a workaroud. > > > In that case, I'm not sure Python is doing the best. > > > > But this behavior is per the specification, not a workaround. I think > > the worst thing we could do in this regard would be to start diverging > > from the specification because we think we know better than the > > Unicode Consortium. > > > > > > > If "wrong", this can be considered as programmatically correct > > > or logically acceptable (Py3.2) > > > > > >>>> 'Straße'.upper().lower().capitalize() == 'Straße' > > > True > > > > > > while this will *always* be problematic (Py3.3) > > > > > >>>> 'Straße'.upper().lower().capitalize() == 'Straße' > > > False > > > > On the other hand (Py3.2): > > > > >>> 'Straße'.upper().isupper() > > False > > > > vs. Py3.3: > > > > >>> 'Straße'.upper().isupper() > > True > > > > There is probably no one clearly correct way to handle the problem, > > but personally this contradiction bothers me more than the example > > that you posted.
---- At least, we agree on the problematic of this very special case. jmf -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
