AW: AW: sharp s (Eszett)
g.ochsner at revolistic.com
Tue Mar 11 11:29:30 CET 2008
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Kenneth Whistler
> Gesendet: Montag, 10. März 2008 21:55
> Jelte Jansen said:
> > So if IDNAbis would make an exception for the sharp S, and allow it as
> > a separate symbol, would there be people running to their lawyers
> > because they think it's equivalent to ss too ...
> It *is* equivalent to ss, too. It just depends on what level
> and type of equivalence you are talking about. They aren't
> equivalent for spelling, obviously -- but they *are* equivalent
> for some types of searching and sorting.
Why should they be equivalent in general just because there are equivalences
for "some types of searching and sorting"? What happens if sharp s is
replaced by "ss"? You get words that look different (you even get different
lengths of words BTW), you get wrong spelling most probably (which would in
school for instance be corrected by a teacher, because it does not exist in
the Duden), or even worse words with totally different meanings. And
concerning collation, there is a clear rule how to sort two words which only
differ in the use of sharp or double s.
More information about the Idna-update