Re: dotless j

From: John Cowan (cowan@locke.ccil.org)
Date: Sun Jul 04 1999 - 19:42:22 EDT


Curtis Clark scripsit:

> 2. Users of languages that require accented j would make or commision fonts
> with U+006A dotless (a "glyph variant"). When they wrote in, say, English,
> they would combine it with U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE, and hope that no one
> would ever search or sort it.
>
> 3. Dotless j could go in the private use area, and all the users of
> languages that required accented j could agree on where.

These are both based on the assumption that every glyph must correspond
one-for-one with some Unicode character: but that is false. Some
characters may have more than one glyph, and some glyphs may correspond
to no character whatever. Dotless-j falls naturally into that
latter category: it is a highly useful glyph, but not a character.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT