German sharp S uppercase mapping

[Ivan Panchenko]

Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>:
> I totally agree with the parsing of the sentence. It is quite clear,
> that the way this statement is written implies the use of captial sharp
> S as the ordinary (or "unmarked") case, while the "SS" can be used in
> addition (implicit in that is the suggestion that you might have a
> particular reason, such as compatibility with older usage, but also,
> things like identifiers.

I still disagree. Let us look at the full context:

• In 2006, only “SS” was allowed (“Bei Schreibung mit Großbuchstaben
schreibt man SS”; italicized “SS”).

• In 2011, “ẞ” was introduced, and they dealt with this case by adding
the sentence “Daneben ist auch die Verwendung des Großbuchstabens ẞ
möglich” (italicized “ẞ”) to § 25 E3.

• However, the wording suggested, perhaps unintendedly, that the “SS”
form is the standard one because “Bei Schreibung mit Großbuchstaben
schreibt man SS” remained in this form rather than, say, in the form
“[…] KANN […] geschrieben werden” (“[…] can be written”). Perhaps for
this reason, the wording was changed in 2024 to what we have now.

(And yet, people can still read too much into it …)

Here is how I understand it: “ẞ” is already shown among the 30 capital
letters in the preliminary remarks (“Vorbemerkungen”). Given that, §
25 E3 is only required to introduce the “SS” alternative, so the point
is that besides (“neben”) the capital sharp S (which we already know),
“SS” is also (“auch”) allowed. In this context, “also” does not mean
that the other variant is preferred, it is just there for an addition
to WHAT WAS ALREADY SHOWN in the “Vorbemerkungen”.

I do agree that “auch” (as opposed to “oder” or just a comma) can be
used for a secondary variant in a dictionary entry, but it is not so
clear to me that we can apply such an understanding to our case. Even
if it is the case that the writers have written it in this way because
they personally prefer the capital eszett, this preference is
certainly not part of the literal meaning and should, in my opinion,
not be considered as officially codified; it would simply be a
personal preference of the writer(s). And it is certainly wrong that
“SS” can only be used where “ẞ” is unavailable.