RE: FAQ entry (was: Looking for information on the UnicodeData file)

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 08:16:50 EST

  • Next message: John H. Jenkins: "Re: FAQ entry (was: Looking for information on the UnicodeData file)"

    > > For instance, the Danish ae (U+00E6) is not designated a ligature,
    > It was in Unicode 1.0; I think politics were involved in that one.
    > In Latin use, ae is most certainly a ligature, and likewise in the
    > languages (including English) that have borrowed words involving it.
    > In Danish use, though, it is a separate letter.

    Typographically, it's a ligature either way. And yes, this is a letter
    in Danish.

    > > but the
    > > Dutch ij (U+0133) is, even though the "a" and "e" are clearly fused
    > > together, while the "i" and "j" aren't.
    > I have certainly seen "ij" glyphs that looked quite fused,
    > more like "\xff",
    > which is why that letter appears in 8859-1 but its capital equivalent
    > does not.

    There is no ij ligarure character in 8859-1. For signs (on buildings)
    IJ is sometimes "fused".

                    /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 08:56:59 EST