<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/2/2024 1:12 PM, David Starner via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMZ=zj4rWVTRDjCEqvbzA2PbnD3T09a_A_LHS8OXmr-Yuqt=-Q@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 11:27 PM Asmus Freytag via Unicode
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
Let me break it down into two points. Starting with the less
controversial, when counting the use of the capital ẞ, one should
count ß in uppercase contexts separately from SS.</pre>
</blockquote>
Wait, what are we counting now?<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMZ=zj4rWVTRDjCEqvbzA2PbnD3T09a_A_LHS8OXmr-Yuqt=-Q@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
Secondly, is there a position that ß should be used in uppercase
contexts, especially as opposed to using ẞ? </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I've stated, as fact, that the example shows a fallback using the
lowercase in an ALL CAPS context. This fallback was discussed
extensively as part of the background research for the proposal to
encode the uppercase form. Therefore, the fallback is not a simple
typo, but something that was practiced and perhaps even
recommended by some (at the time). <br>
</p>
<p>As you quote, I agreeing with whoever I replied to that the
fallback has outlived its usefulness. So your question here is
disingenuous.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMZ=zj4rWVTRDjCEqvbzA2PbnD3T09a_A_LHS8OXmr-Yuqt=-Q@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">If there's absolutely no
such movement, I think it clear that ß should be counted as a glyph
variant of ẞ in uppercase contexts.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Different letters aren't glyph variants of each other, they are
alternate spellings.</p>
<p>I have no issue with acknowledging that alternate spellings exist
in this context (ALL CAPS). Incidentally, SS is also one of the
alternate spellings. <br>
</p>
<p>I would be happy if things settled to where the single capital
letter becomes the preferred spelling. But that's different from
reading a lowercase letter "as if" it were the uppercase one.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMZ=zj4rWVTRDjCEqvbzA2PbnD3T09a_A_LHS8OXmr-Yuqt=-Q@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"> Fallbacks like that are almost
always normalized; older texts usually have long-s turned to s and
scriptorial abbreviations expanded when published, for example. If
there is a serious movement against ẞ and for ß as uppercase, then I'm
wrong. I'm certainly biased towards having neat upper-lowercase pairs.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, and strawman argument. Nobody is asking for a "<span
style="white-space: pre-wrap">movement against ẞ and for ß as uppercase</span>
", but we are arguing against calling a lowercase letter an
uppercase letter (in a specific example where the glyph clearly
marks it as the lowercase one).</p>
<p>Pretending that alternate spellings aren't used is not helpful.
And it's not required as a precondition to having a preferred
spelling different from the example we discussed.</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMZ=zj4rWVTRDjCEqvbzA2PbnD3T09a_A_LHS8OXmr-Yuqt=-Q@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>