Re: dotless j

From: John Cowan (cowan@locke.ccil.org)
Date: Tue Jul 06 1999 - 10:40:26 EDT


Michael Everson wrote:

> Gods forfend that we provide convenience and compatibility to the end-user,
> right, John? ;-)

Indeed, Michael. But the end-user is the one who will suffer
from a LATIN LETTER DOTLESS J, because it will make searching
for j-circumflex that much harder. The canonical decomposition
for LATIN LETTER SMALL J WITH CIRCUMFLEX is LATIN LETTER SMALL J
plus COMBINING CIRCUMFLEX, and why should that be changed?

After all, we already have the case (I can't find it just
now, but it's there somewhere) of a diacritic-below that gets
rendered above on some capital letter, but below on the
corresponding small letter.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
   Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! / Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,
   Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau / Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.
			-- Coleridge / Politzer



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