On 12/1/2024 2:24 PM, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 3:42 PM Markus Scherer <[email protected]> wrote:
No, that one is clearly a lowercase ß.
I disagree; that's clearly an eszett, between other uppercase
characters, and unless there's some linguistic weirdness going on,
like iPhone or eBook, that's a capital letter.
No, it's not.
Glyphs have to be taken
in context, and in that case, it's clear they didn't intend for one
character in the middle of the word to be lowercase.
That (writing a lowercase ß in ALLCAPS) being / having been an
acceptable fallback, you can't assume anything based on context. You do
need to consider the glyph (unless you have access to the underlying
text buffer).
I could wonder
whether that's a bad glyph for the text, or one used by preference to
the ẞ style glyph, but in Latin-script German, in a modern Unicode
context, it makes no sense to maintain a distinction between an
uppercased lowercase ß and an uppercase ẞ. Uppercase("ß") should go to
"SS" or "ẞ", and a glyph looking like ß in an uppercase context should
be interpreted and written as U+1E9E, not U+00DF.
The glyph is clearly not that for a capital letter - for one, it extends
above the tops of all other capitals. Typical designs for capital forms
of ß tend to be wider and a bit more squat in appearance. The
distinction is quite noticeable.
What you are arguing is that one should not use that fallback any
longer. I have no arguments with that, but in this case, the fallback
was used.
A./
