I agree you will need a fully composed glyph, I do not agree you will need
characters for each of these. A properly designed Unicode rendering
algorithm
will automatically select the fully composed glyphs if it encounters the
sequence
j with accent ... above. If such a a glyph is not available, it will be able
to default to
a dotless j glyph with the accent correctly positioned above it. (or is it
that difficult to
shift a glyph up a little bit?). I agree you may want to have several glyphs
for the
accent: a narrower on for i, j, a bigger one for capital letters, etc....
The point is,
you will not need to give all these pre-composed glyphs their own unicode
code-point.
-----Original Message-----
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:02:00AM -0700, Luke Stevens wrote:
> Just an observation--
> if there is a dotless i, why not a dotless j? You can't apply many of
> the usual combining diacritics (e.g. a macron) to j because the dot is
> in the way. And yes, this is actually a problem for me from time to
> time.
If you want to do proper rendering you have to have a fully composed
glyph for each of the proper letters. You cannot just use the combining
characters with a base character, most of the combining diacritics would
not fit as they should on top of lowercase vs uppercase letters,
such as iI jJ aA oO uU etc, in combination with ~'`¨ etc.
Keld
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT