From: James H. Cloos Jr. (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 15:13:36 EDT
>>>>> "Philippe" == Philippe Verdy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Philippe> But if one wants to restore the preious visual behavior,
Philippe> even if it's incorrect for languages using this digraph as a
Philippe> letter, what would be the behavior of using the following
Philippe> sequence: <ij, combining dot above, combining accute>
Philippe> (i.e. should this display 1 or 2 dots?)
Seems clear to me that if ij has soft dots (and I agree it should)
then to get a pair of dots via a combining accent one should use a
two dot combining accent: U+0308 COMBINING DIAERESIS.
So if you want two dots and an acute use ‹ij, U+0308, U+0301›: ĳ̈́
Of course a given font’s diaeresis will often not line up with the
stems of its ij, and a custom one should be used instead. Or
features and/or ligs as appropriate to the font’ technology could
just use the ‹ij› glyph w/ an extra acute. Either way it is a glyph
issue rather than a character issue.
But it really seems to be just an academic issue, yes?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 16:10:57 EDT