(stuck in my outbox for a bit)
On 11/27/2024 5:12 AM, Daniel Buncic via Unicode wrote:
Am 27.11.2024 um 13:25 schrieb Otto Stolz via Unicode:
So, the wording of the sentence has been reversed, but the example
is given in the same order as in the previous version.
I will stop discussing the interpretation of this sentence now, but
this is interesting: In the pdf version on the website of the
orthography council
(https://www.rechtschreibrat.com/DOX/RfdR_Amtliches-Regelwerk_2024.pdf,
p. 48) it is “STRAẞE – STRASSE”. On the website of the IDS (Institute
for the German language), which is supposed to have just an HTML
version of the same text, it is “STRASSE – STRAẞE”. Obviously some
kind of copy-paste error.
Best wishes,
Daniel
Stepping back, it is clear that there has been a lengthy transition
here. Up to some point in the past, the use of capital sharp S was
limited to environments which had an extended typeface support and some
control over selecting glyphs whether manually or with some mechanism
other than invoked by a character code.
That is trivially true, because at some point, no character encoding
existed for the capital form (nor was it part of manual keyboards).
Nevertheless, it was used to some degree, as has been documented, even
though it wasn't feasible to suggest or mandate its use in standard or
default capitalization.
Later, the character was encoded and became supported in fonts and
keyboards. Initially, the reaction of the rule makers was to allow it as
an alternative to SS.
Since then, the support has become more widespread. It now appears that
this is leading to a shift towards a stance from the "descriptive" rule
makers that acknowledges the fact that the use of this character is no
longer fundamentally limited.
The attached image, if it comes through, shows the latest use that I
happened to catch a few days ago.
Rather than getting hung up on details of parsing one particular part of
one sentence, it would be more useful from Unicode's perspective if
someone (Daniel?) could sum up in a short document base on this
discussion where Unicode is behind the curve and to make sure the
support in CLDR is up to actual current practice and not what it was 10
or 15 years ago.
As part of this, the clarification of the difference between stable
identifier-safe casing and up-to-date text processing needs to be
addressed. The problem report should explain the distinction and, if
possible, list places in the text that need to be fixed, but fully
worked out language isn't a requirement (I'm sure the properties groups
and the editorial WG will have their own ideas on wording).
However, any perceived shortcomings in existing CLDR support should be
noted.
A./
PS: one downside of the "SS" fallback is that it tends to interfere with
the use of "ss" over "ß" in indicating the length of the preceding
vowel. This is a consequence of the reform taken 30 years ago, which has
been in use long enough to introduce the expectation for many readers
that "SS" follows a short vowel, something that makes the use of capital
sharp s more natural.
