Py 3.3, unicode / upper()

[wxjmfauth at gmail.com]

Le mercredi 19 décembre 2012 22:23:15 UTC+1, Ian a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM,  <wxjmfauth at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, it is correct (or can be considered as correct).
> 
> > I do not wish to discuss the typographical problematic
> 
> > of "Das Grosse Eszett". The web is full of pages on the
> 
> > subject. However, I never succeeded to find an "official
> 
> > position" from Unicode. The best information I found seem
> 
> > to indicate (to converge), U+1E9E is now the "supported"
> 
> > uppercase form of U+00DF. (see DIN).
> 
> 
> 
> Is this link not official?
> 
> 
> 
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=00DF
> 
> 
> 
> That defines a full uppercase mapping to SS and a simple uppercase
> 
> mapping to U+00DF itself, not U+1E9E.  My understanding of the simple
> 
> mapping is that it is not allowed to map to multiple characters,
> 
> whereas the full mapping is so allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> > What is bothering me, is more the implementation. The Unicode
> 
> > documentation says roughly this: if something can not be
> 
> > honoured, there is no harm, but do not implement a workaroud.
> 
> > In that case, I'm not sure Python is doing the best.
> 
> 
> 
> But this behavior is per the specification, not a workaround.  I think
> 
> the worst thing we could do in this regard would be to start diverging
> 
> from the specification because we think we know better than the
> 
> Unicode Consortium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > If "wrong", this can be considered as programmatically correct
> 
> > or logically acceptable (Py3.2)
> 
> >
> 
> >>>> 'Straße'.upper().lower().capitalize() == 'Straße'
> 
> > True
> 
> >
> 
> > while this will *always* be problematic (Py3.3)
> 
> >
> 
> >>>> 'Straße'.upper().lower().capitalize() == 'Straße'
> 
> > False
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand (Py3.2):
> 
> 
> 
> >>> 'Straße'.upper().isupper()
> 
> False
> 
> 
> 
> vs. Py3.3:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> 'Straße'.upper().isupper()
> 
> True
> 
> 
> 
> There is probably no one clearly correct way to handle the problem,
> 
> but personally this contradiction bothers me more than the example
> 
> that you posted.

----

At least, we agree on the problematic of this very special case.

jmf