Re: Dutch IJ, again

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 16:59:52 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"

    From: "Mark Davis" <>
    > From: "Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin" <>
    > > On 2003.05.25, 00:00, Philippe Verdy <> wrote:
    > > > even if the Dutch language considers it as a single letter, in a
    > > > way similar to the Spanish "ch"
    > >
    > > I see one major difference: When you apply extra wide inter-char
    > > distance, you (should) get, f.i.:
    > > K o r t r ij k and not K o r t r i j k
    > > but E l c h e and not E l ch e
    > > This is common practice in both spanish and dutch typography, ISTK.
    > > I was told in this forum that the surest way to keep this working in
    > > Unicode texts is to use "i<WJ>j" for Dutch and plain "ij" for other
    > > languages.
    > Well, I don't know who told you, but WORD JOINER only affects
    > linebreak behavior, not intercharacter spacing.

    I think he meant <ZWJ> (the zero-width joiner) used as as markup to create a ligated variant of a pair of characters in some languages that offer two very distinct forms (I think about Brahmic scripts such as Devanagari)...
    However it seems that such control character is only needed when this creates significantly different glyph variants that actually have distinct interpretation and semantics in the corresponding language.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2003 - 17:38:39 EDT