From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 22:47:47 EDT
Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ĳ as a character in Unicode at
>> all, but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when
>> refining the rules, to deprecate it practically.
> No, that was needed for correct Dutch support. Look at the case
> conversion of <ij> into <IJ>, even with titlecase...
You don't need a separate character for that. You can use special
casing rules. That's why Unicode doesn't have special I and i
characters for Turkish.
Believe it or not, the IJ and ij digraphs *were* included for
compatibility with an 8-bit legacy character set (ISO 6937). Whether
that automatically means they should have been assigned canonical
instead of compatibility decompositions, I don't know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 23:31:43 EDT