<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">(stuck in my outbox for a bit)<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/27/2024 5:12 AM, Daniel Buncic
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:97671c8e-bed3-4fb4-9e9b-fdf5558b7666@uni-koeln.de">Am
27.11.2024 um 13:25 schrieb Otto Stolz via Unicode:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So, the wording of the sentence has been
reversed, but the example
<br>
is given in the same order as in the previous version.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.rechtschreibrat.com/DOX/RfdR_Amtliches-Regelwerk_2024.pdf">https://www.rechtschreibrat.com/DOX/RfdR_Amtliches-Regelwerk_2024.pdf</a>,
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.
<br>
<br>
Best wishes,
<br>
<br>
Daniel
<br>
<img src="cid:part1.N73MeAld.ERruipMv@ix.netcom.com" alt=""></blockquote>
<p><font face="Candara">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. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">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.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">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. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">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.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">The attached image, if it comes through,
shows the latest use that I happened to catch a few days ago.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">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.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">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).</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">However, any perceived shortcomings in
existing CLDR support should be noted.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">A./</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">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.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara"><br>
</font></p>
</body>
</html>