Comment 12 for bug 650498

My understanding is that pre-reform there were the two transformations (Große Duden, Sixteen ed., East Germany, 1969); SZ being used instead of SS where there was ambiguous or conflicting word in the case of capitalisation; eg:

  Busse→BUSSE
  Buße→BUSZE

Post reform, the /transform/ is based on availability of the ß, and if not, the word should be transformed ß→ss or ß→SS:

  http://rechtschreibrat.ids-mannheim.de/download/regeln2006.pdf
  Paragraph 25, Explanation 3 (PDF page 27)

Note that the wording of §25E2 is that "if ß is not available, write ss". And since the current alphabet has 30 lowercase and 29 uppercase (Rules; Section 1.A.0 (PDF page 13)), this is what in-turn leads to the §25E3 explanation (current ß is /always/ not available in uppercase).

...So, not having an "uppercase" eszett /was/ the blocker for its further inclusion into the orthography (now been "fixed"). Ultimately, to quote a German I was talking to yesterday, "if RdR [now] add it to the orthography, that's what will be taught in the nursery schools". If a ẞ gets added to the alphabet, the existing rules still stay in place, but the glyph is now "available" and the transformation is not necessary.

For comparision: we could probably discuss at great length whether ₹ is a contrived ligature without historical basis (of Rर) . There are probably also cases where (for personal reasons) some of us individually might wish to restrict the use our work for particular ends or means (not designing nuclear weapons). At the end of the day, it is not for us to pass judgement on how others wish to use our work, just to ensure that /if/ somebody really, really wants to do something—be it going through an international standards body, or checking in with Dignitas—that we pragmatically /give/ them the best possible experience in performing that endeavour, even if we do not personally agree with the decision, or there motivations behind it in the specific instance.