On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

>bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> Eszett is offensive because it absolutely *forces* its craziness
>> back up to the user-attention level, and makes the "correct"
>> behavior precisely the problematic behavior (strings change length
>> on case ops) I had managed to completely eliminate for the rest of
>> Unicode.
>
>The "user attention" level?  User's don't care about such things as
>"string lengths".

excuse me - should have said "programmer attention level" -- programmers
make mistakes because they assume that string lengths don't change in
casing operations.

				Bear