It is great to see the enthusiasm here and those contributing have exceeded my domain-knowledge, which means that unfortunately in reading this I have to rely on the secondary sources that are presented.
In best Wikipedia fashion, if people wish to maintain a stance or point- of-view, please clearly back it up with links to verifiable historical or academic sources: it makes it easier for the rest of us to follow because we then all have the same set of accounts and facts in front of us. If it is the case that two historical or academic sources conflict each other or give differing accounts then we simply need to note that it is uncertain... it does not need to be become a matter of personalities or personal wish. Winning is /not/ the aim here, and either is having the last word. If we're talking about how to design this character's uppercase glyph in a way that is instantly recognisable to readers who have never seen it before, then I welcome the creative differences and the distillation of those attempts should bring clarity. If we're talking about historical accounts, lets please stick to the sources and let those speak for themselves (in whatever language they were written). -- Expansion: 'ẞ' LATIN CAPTIAL LETTER SHARP S (U+1E9E) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/650498 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
