From: Martin Heijdra (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 09:03:07 EDT
Of course, i+j are SOMETIMES treated differently from ij: a vertical sign
BIJOU would separate i and j when IJS wouldn't. Nothing different there from
some other cases in French or German though.
> At 10:58 AM 4/28/2003, John M. Fiscella wrote:
> >Then how is the difference between <i><j> and <ij> distinguished in
> I think the point is that there is no distinction to be made in plain
> As Tom pointed out, despite all the special handling required in sorting,
> hyphenation, casing (and, I would add, letterspacing), /IJ/ 'must remain
> equivalent with I+J'. In plain text, this equivalency is all that matters,
> which is why I don't believe the /IJ/ and /ij/ characters are necessary at
> all. If the Dutch treated /IJ/ and /I/+/J/ differently at any time, there
> might be an argument for separately encoding them, but they don't: /IJ/
> always and everywhere equals /I/+/J/, ergo there is not need for separate
> John Hudson
> Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
> Vancouver, BC email@example.com
> As for the technique of trimming the nib,
> Do not be greedy!
> I will not reveal its nuances; I withhold its secrets.
> - Ibn al-Bawwab, Ra'iyyah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 10:02:32 EDT