Re: Accented ij ligatures (was: Unicode Public Review Issues update)

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 09:20:01 EDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Soft-dotted (was: RE: Unicode Public Review Issues update)"

    On Monday, June 30, 2003 1:58 PM, Pim Blokland <> wrote:

    > Philippe Verdy schreef:
    > > Interesting issue for the Latin Small "ij" Ligature (U+0133):
    > > Normally the Soft_Dotted issupposed to make disappear one dot when
    > > there's and additional diacritic above, but many applications may
    > > keep these two dots above, fitting the diacritic in the middle.
    > >
    > > This proposal would mean that this become illegal, and it promote
    > > the use of an additional intermediate dot-above diacritic if the
    > > dot must be kept.
    > I don't know of any instances where a ij digraph would keep the dots
    > AND get additional accent marks, nor of any where the ij would
    > appear with a dotless i and dotless j and a single dot above,
    > centered between them. Can you give examples?

    No of course: the only sequence I know is a dotless ij digraph with
    a centered accute accent. I just wonder if this public review makes
    things clear that the presence of an accute accent is supposed to
    remove both dots. For now I have seen some fonts keeping
    the two dots, when centering an additional accute accent.
    The text of this update should specify that for this pair, the
    intended option is to remove both soft dots, if there are other

    But if one wants to restore the preious visual behavior, even if it's
    incorrect for languages using this digraph as a letter, what would be
    the behavior of using the following sequence:
    <ij, combining dot above, combining accute>
    (i.e. should this display 1 or 2 dots?)

    Should the previous incorrect rendering be approximated with:
    <ij, combining diaeresis, combining accute>
    <ij, combining dot above, combining dot above, combining accute>

    -- Philippe.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 10:08:12 EDT