Denis, I have no problems with people having freedom to decide what's right or wrong for them, as long as their actions do not affect the freedom of others. In the case of eszett, I believe that instead of adding a uppercase version, the Duden folks should have abandoned the lowercase eszett altogether and two generations along we could have finally rid ourselves of this glyph from the Unicode list. The truth is that most Germans do not apply the eszett correctly, particularly not since the last reform. Yes, the rules have been simplified, and most exceptions to these rules have been culled, but the application is still arbitrary, as mentioned above. I looked through the rationalisation but it is not convincing, and frankly, DIN doesn't always get it right, either. I also think the Unicode consortium was misguided to add it to the list. I am sure there are more worthy causes.
Typographically, the proposed design for this glyph is atrocious. It's a lowercase version drawn to cap proportions and has not historic rooting. It is a whorechild for which no amount of cosmetic application would bring an improvement. The historic examples that are shown in the rationalisation are feeble attempts by printers to enforce the eszett rule on cap only setting without any thought of how the eszett ever has come about. I can't think of any historic setting where a distinction was made between long- and short-s in cap setting. It's one design, that's it. So logic would follow, that in this instance a cap-eszett would be made up of two plain S designs. -- Expansion: 'ẞ' LATIN CAPTIAL LETTER SHARP S (U+1E9E) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/650498 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
