It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Jasper de Waard said:The question is this: if a type user just typed fußball and makes that word smallcaps, would he/she probably want the ß to be converted to the smallcap eszett, or to (I think more conventional) smallcap ss. And if the latter is the case, how would I make the smallcap eszett accesible?
Johannes Neumeier said:
ß becomes ẞ. Writing a ß to a ss is a convention that stems from computer systems and typewriters lacking the proper glyph. Although commonly understood, I don't think it is a correct substitution, as argued for the inclusion of the uppercase character to the official alphabet. If the user explicitly wants to keep the dated way of writing, they can explicitly type a double S.
3. Bei der Worttrennung wird dieses ss wie andere Doppelkonsonanten behandelt <§ 108>.
In Dokumenten kann bei Namen aus Gründen der Eindeutigkeit auch bei Großbuchstaben das ß verwendet werden.
Für den im internationalen Standard-Zeichensatz „Unicode" (ISO/IEC 10646) verzeichneten Großbuchstaben für das ß gibt es derzeit noch keine allgemein verwendete Schriftform. Er ist nicht Gegenstand der amtlichen Rechtschreibregelung.
(image from here)
It's really up to user taste and context. Personally I'd find an OT substitution of ß to SS bewildering. Especially in a context with of person or place names the OT rule would distort the meaning of the written names, which it never should.
My conclusion so far:
c2sc feature: sub Germandbls by germandbls.sc;
smcp feature: sub germandbls by s.sc s.sc;
Otherwise, no mention of germandbls.sc/Germandbls is strictly needed.
But, and this brings me to my original question: IF a designer wants to use either germandbls.sc or Germandbls (note the cap G), they have to do so through the glyph panel, which seems cumbersome. Could it be helpful to include both as discretionary ligatures? Or would that just be confusing? I mean, in essence, it kind of IS a ligature, and it IS discretionary, right?