[Dewie2]

> I simply tried (and failed, it seems) to say that they are generally considered to be equivalent,

Do you think I have a hard time understanding that the intent in this case is to use "aa" as a substitute for "å"? Let me put your mind at ease: I get, and got, that intent. I am not so inexperienced with reading or writing foreign words that I haven't noticed that one sometimes takes some liberties with spelling words using one's own characters, as long as the meaning is clear. My concern is more about whether it is proper to do that with names. Specifically, Norwegian names.

What I choose to do when I can't input some name because of foreign characters is to copy paste it when I need it. That might be tedious, but at least it doesn't require any sophistication.

[Foxboron]

>My concern is more about whether it is proper to do that with names. Specifically, Norwegian names.

Yes. This is common all over the place. Nobody really cares.

Source: I'm Norwegian.

EDIT: >Secondly, we make a distinction between whether someone is named "Christian" or "Kristian", for example. According to your logic, it wouldn't matter since there is no difference except spelling between these two names. But it does.

Well, thats a strawman as i read it. You can't compare "normal" names and names with special letters in them. It does not really make sense. Some systems, that does not use Unicode as an example, would have no problems with "Kristian", but "Knausgård" might bring problems. Thus you write "Knausgaard". This also applies to street names, town and other words.

As i said, this is quite common in Norway. Nobody really minds it at all.

[Dewie2]

> Yes. This is common all over the place. Nobody really cares.

> Source: I'm Norwegian.

As you've probably guessed, as am I. So then we have two apparent Norwegians (me and uer haakon) who cares. So maybe "somebody cares", after all? :)

> Well, thats a strawman as i read it. You can't compare "normal" names and names with special letters in them. It does not really make sense.

Right, normal with scare quotes. What is that supposed to mean? So then, "Ch" is not "special" compared to "å" simply because of some technical limitation? Because "å" is somewhat distinct to the Scandinavian languages? Why is "Christian" and "Kristian" normal, distinct names, while the use of "aa" does not produce distinct names? In fact, as you can see in this thread, some people name their child "Håkon", others name them "Haakon". "aa" is not simply something you throw in as a replacement for "å" in names.

This is a Danish example, but so be it: Many Danish places have gone over to using "aa" instead of "å". So this was a deliberate decision, not simply "we just spell it however we want". They had to make a decision. In constrast, Språkrådet[1] of Norway does apparently not want to do the same for places like "Ålesund", for example. So at least as far as Språkrådet is concerned, the use of "å" or "aa" in names does matter and they consider them to be distinct "characters". Not simply shallow pseudo-typographical conventions.

"Ch" is not really a (compound) character in the Norwegian language, as in Norwegian words (outside of, perhaps, loan words). And yet, we respect people's names enough to call people who are "Christian" as "Christian"; not "Kristian". Did people who named their child "Christian" miss the "k" letter on their keyboard? Most likely not. Yet they chose that spelling, and we respect that.

[1] http://www.nrk.no/norge/_-ikke-stedsnavn-med-aa-i-norge-1.70...

> As i said, this is quite common in Norway. Nobody really minds it at all.

Yes, your idea that your experiences totally overrides and eclipse my own ("nobody really minds at all") was noted the first time.

[sliverstorm]

So then, "Ch" is not "special" compared to "å" simply because of some technical limitation?

Um. Yes? Precisely?

Like it or not, ASCII is not gone yet.