On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 19:55:24 +0000 Hans Meiser <bril...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I see. > > Yet, the u+1E9E doesn't quite look like two capital "S". So any > program implementing a conversion conforming to Unicode will > currently display/print in a wrong result: "MAßE" instead of the > correctly converted result "MASSE". While the default simple uppercasing of "maße" will yield "MAßE", the default full uppercasing will yield "MASSE". I am not aware of a useful definition of 'conforming to Unicode' that applies to either transformation. > Both would be correctly encoded > as u+004D u+0041 u+1E9E u+0045. Yet, AFAIK, the current glyph would > currently be considered an error. > > Proposal: Shouldn't the glyph be amended to match the natural > language? No, the glyph corresponds to *a* natural form of German, as opposed to Standard German - which some would argue was not a natural language! Now, it may be argued that U+00DF has the same glyph as U+1E9E when next to a capital letter, but that is a font decision, not a Unicode decision. One could therefore define an uppercasing transformation that was a conformant Unicode process, and agreed with default uppercasing on NFD strings except for U+00DF, but differed by mapping U+00DF to U+1E9E. One might not notice any error in the printed output of this process, any more than one would notice U+006F LATIN SMALL LETTER O being transformed to U+041E CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER O. Richard.